IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


1.0 


I.I 


25 


1^128 
■^  1^    II  2.2 
2.0 


lU 


ii& 


( 

11.25      1.4 

111^^ 

^ 

6"     — 

^ 

Photographic 

Sdences 

Corporation 


o^ 


23  WEST  MAIN  STREET 

WEBSTER,  N.Y.  14580 

(716)  872-4503 


ES 


^ 

,^^% 

^^\^ 


CIHM/ICMH 

Microfiche 

Series, 


CIHM/ICIVIH 
Collection  de 
microfiches. 


Canadian  Institute  for  Historical  Microreproductions  /  Institut  Canadian  de  microreproductions  historiques 


\ 


^ 


!. 


Tachnfcai  and  Bibliographie  Notaa/Notaa  tachniquaa  at  bibliographiquaa 


Tha  Inttituta  haa  attamptad  to  obtain  tha  baat 
original  copy  availabia  for  filming.  Faaturaa  of  thia 
copy  which  may  ba  bibliographically  uniqua. 
which  may  altar  any  of  tha  imagaa  in  tha 
raproduction,  or  which  may  significantly  changa 
tha  uaual  mathnd  of  filming,  ara  chackad  balow. 


D 


D 


D 


D 
D 


D 


D 


Colourad  cowara/ 
Couvartura  da  coulaur 


I      I    Covars  damagad/ 


Couvartura  andommagia 


Covars  rastorad  and/or  laminatad/ 
Couvartura  rastauria  at/ou  palliculAa 


I — I    Covar  titia  misaing/ 


La  titra  da  couvartura  manqua 


□    Colourad  mapa/ 
Cartas  giographiquas  an  coulaur 


Colourad  ink  (i.a.  other  than  blua  or  black)/ 
Encre  da  coulaur  (i.a.  autre  qua  blaua  ou  noira) 


rn    Colourad  platas  and/or  illustrations/ 


Planchaa  at/ou  illuatrationa  un  coulaur 


Bound  with  othar  matarial/ 
RaiM  avac  d'autras  documents 


Tight  binding  may  causa  shadows  or  cstortion 
along  interior  margin/ 

La  re  liure  serrie  peut  causer  de  I'ombre  ou  de  la 
distorsion  1e  long  cLa  la  marge  intArieure 

Blank  laavos  added  during  restoration  may 
appear  within  the  text.  Whenever  possible,  these 
have  been  omitted  from  filming/ 
il  se  peut  que  certainas  pages  blanches  ajouties 
lors  d'une  restauration  apparaiaaant  dans  la  texte. 
mais,  lorsque  cela  Atait  possible,  ces  pages  n'ont 
pea  6ti  film^es. 

Additional  comments:/ 
Commentaires  supplimentatres; 


L'Instltut  a  microfilm*  la  maiileur  axemplaire 
qu'il  lui  a  At*  possible  de  sa  procurer.  La»  details 
de  cat  axemplaire  qui  sont  peut-Atre  uniques  du 
point  de  vue  bibliogrephique,  qui  peuvent  modifier 
une  image  reproduite,  ou  qui  peuvent  exiger  une 
modification  dans  ia  m^thoda  normale  de  fiimaga 
sont  indiquAa  ci-deaaous. 


□    Coloured  pagea/ 
Pages  de  eouieur 

r~~|    Pagea  damaged/ 


D 


D 


Pagea  endommagdes 

Pagea  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Pages  restaurAea  et/ou  peilicuiies 


r~'l    Pages  discoloured,  stained  or  foxed/ 


Pages  dicoiories,  tachattes  ou  piquies 

Pages  detached/ 
Pages  ditachias 

Showthrough/ 
Transparence 

Quality  of  prir 

Qualiti  in^gala  de  {'impression 

includes  supplementary  materii 
Comprend  du  material  supplAmentaire 

Only  edition  available/ 
Seule  Mition  disponible 


I      I  Pages  detached/ 

r~n  Showthrough/ 

I      I  Quality  of  print  varies/ 

r~n  includes  supplementary  material/ 

|~~|  Only  edition  available/ 


Pages  wholly  or  partially  obscured  by  errata 
slips,  tissues,  etc.,  have  been  refiimed  to 
ensure  the  best  possible  image/ 
Lee  pages  totaiement  ou  partieilement 
obscurcies  par  un  feuiilet  d'errata,  une  peiure, 
etc.,  ont  M  fiimies  i  nouveau  de  fapon  i 
obtenir  la  meilleure  image  possible. 


Th 
to 


T^ 
pc 
of 
fil 


Oi 
bi 
th 
si< 
ot 
fir 
sl< 
or 


Tl 
s^ 
T! 
w 

M 
di 
er 
b( 

rll 
re 
m 


This  item  is  filmed  at  the  reduction  ratio  checked  below/ 

Ce  document  est  film*  au  taux  de  reduction  indiqui  ci-dessous. 


10X 

14X 

18X 

22X 

26X 

30X 

y 

• 

12X 


16X 


2DX 


24X 


28X 


32X 


Th«  copy  fllmad  h«r«  has  b««n  raproducad  thanks 
to  tha  ganarosity  of: 

Scott  Library, 
York  University 
Toronto 

Tha  imagas  appaaring  hara  ara  tha  bast  quality 
possibia  considaring  tha  condition  and  lagibiiity 
of  tha  original  copy  and  in  Icaaping  with  tha 
filming  contract  spacifications. 


L'axamplaira  film*  fut  raproduit  grica  k  la 
g^nArosit*  da: 

Scott  Library, 
Yoric  Univariity 
Toronto 

Las  imagas  suivantas  ont  4t4  raproduitas  avac  la 
plus  grand  soin,  compta  tanu  dtt  la  condition  at 
da  la  nattat4  da  Taxamplaira  fiimi,  at  an 
conformiti  avac  las  conditions  du  contrat  da 
fllmaga. 


Original  copias  in  printad  papar  covars  ara  fiimad 
baginning  with  tha  front  covar  and  anding  on 
tha  last  paga  with  a  printad  or  illuatratad  impras- 
sion,  or  tha  back  covar  whan  appropriata.  All 
othar  original  copiaa  ara  fiimad  baginning  on  tha 
first  paga  with  a  printad  or  illuatratad  impraa- 
sion.  and  anding  on  tha  laat  paga  with  a  printad 
or  illuatratad  imprassion. 


Las  axamplairas  originaux  dont  la  couvartura  an 
papiar  aat  imprimAa  sont  fiimis  an  commandant 
par  la  pramiar  plat  at  an  tarminant  soit  par  la 
darnlAra  paga  qui  comporta  una  amprainta 
d'impraaaion  ou  d'illustration,  soit  par  la  sacond 
plat,  aalon  la  caa.  Tous  las  autras  axamplairas 
originaux  sont  filmis  an  commanfant  par  la 
pramiira  paga  qui  comporta  una  amprainta 
d'impraaaion  ou  d'illustration  at  an  tarminant  par 
la  darnlAra  paga  qui  comporta  una  talla 
amprainta. 


Tha  last  racordad  frama  on  aach  microficha 
shall  contain  tha  symbol  — *•  (moaning  "CON- 
TINUED"), or  tha  symbol  V  (maaning  "END"), 
whichavar  appliaa. 

IMaps,  platas,  charts,  ate,  may  ba  fiimad  at 
diffarant  raduction  ratios.  Thosa  too  larga  to  ba 
antiraly  includad  in  ona  axposura  ara  flEmad 
baginning  in  tha  uppar  laft  hand  cornar.  laft  to 
right  and  top  to  bottom,  aa  many  firamaa  aa 
raquirad.  Tha  following  diagrams  illustrata  vha 
mathod: 


Un  daa  symbolaa  auivanta  apparattra  sur  la 
darnlAra  imaga  da  chaqua  microficha.  salon  la 
cas:  la  aymbola  — »>  signifia  'A  SUIVRE",  la 
symbola  Y  signifia  "FIN". 

Las  cartaa,  planchas.  tablaaux,  ate,  pauvant  Atra 
filmAs  il  daa  taux  da  rMuction  diffArants. 
Lorsqua  la  documant  aat  trop  grand  pour  Atra 
raproduit  an  un  aaul  clich*.  il  aat  film*  A  partir 
da  I'angia  supAriaur  gaucha,  da  gaucha  h  droita. 
at  da  haut  an  baa,  an  pranant  la  nombra 
d'imagaa  nAcaasaira.  Laa  diagrammas  auivanta 
illustrant  la  mAthoda. 


1 

2 

3 

1  2  3 

4  5  6 


] 


m 


THE 


BATTLE  OP  LAKE  ERIE: 


OR 


ANSWERS 


TO 


MESSRS,  BrfiGES,  DUER,  AND  MACKENZIE. 


BY  J.  FENIMORE  COOPER. 


Ml 


COOPERSTOWN, 

H.&E.    PHINNEY. 

184.*! 


I  , 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1843,  by 

J,  FENIMORE    COOPER, 

in  the  office  of  the  Clerk  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  Stales  in 

and  for  the  northern  district  of  New  York. 


ir 

11     ) 


PREFACE. 

In  his  biograpliy  of  Perry,  Graham's  Maga- 
zine, for  May  and  June,  1843,  the  writer  has 
given  his  theory  of  the  Battle  of  Lake  Erie,  as 
connected  with  the  controversy  that  has  risen  out 
of  it.  In  the  Naval  history,  that  controversy  was 
purposely  avoided,  as  unnecessary  to,  and  unfit 
for  such  a  work.  In  this  pamphlet,  the  intention 
is  merely  to  answer  Messrs.  Burges,  Duer  and 
Mackenzie,  all  three  of  whom  comment  on,  and 
the  two  last  of  whom  have  openly  attacked  the 
writer. 

The  writer  has  not  sought  this  discussion.  It 
has  been  forced  on  him  by  his  assailants,  who 
must  now  face  the  consequences.  For  years  the 
writer  has  submitted  in  comparative  silence  to  a 
gross  injustice,  in  connection  with  this  matter,  not 
from  any  want  of  confidence  in  the  justice  of  his 
case  or  any  ability  to  defend  himself,  but,  because 
he  *  bided  his  time,'  knowing,  when  that  should 
arrive,  he  had  truth  to  fall  back  upon.     He 


IV 


PilEFACE. 


has  seen  his  own  work  condemned,  and,  so  far 
as  the  public  authorities  were  concerned,  excluded 
from  the  District  School  Libraries,  and  all  on  ac- 
count of  its  supposed  frauds  in  relation  to  the 
Battle  of  Lake  Erie  ;  while,  on  the  other  hand, 
he  has  heard  Capt.  Mackenzie's  Biography  of 
Perry  lauded  from  one  end  of  the  Union  to  the 
other,  and  preferred  to  that  place  in  the  libraries 
mentioned,  from  which  his  own  work  has  been 
excluded.  The  day  of  reckoning  has  come  at 
length,  and  the  judgment  of  men  will  infallibly 
follow.  For  the  issue,  the  writer  has  no  fears. 
Let  intelligent  men  do  him  the  justice  to  read, 
and  honest  men  the  justice  to  decide  ;  this  is  all 

he  asks,  or  desires. 

J.  FENIMORE  COOPER. 

CooperstowHy  May^  16M,  1843. 


1 


BATTLE  OF  LAKE  ERIE. 


Shortly  after  the  appearance  of  the  history  of  the  Navy 
of  the  United  States,  bitter  and   combined    attacks    were 
made  on  it,  pruicipally  in  connection  with  the  authenticity 
of  its  statements  concerning  the  battle  of  ]uke  Erie.     AIJ 
of  these  attacks  proceeded,  so  far  as  I   liave  been  able  to 
ascertain,  from  the  friends  or  connections  of  the  late  Com. 
Perry.     It  had  suited  that  officer  in  1818,  to  withdraw  the 
eulogium  he  had  bestowed  on  the  conduct  of  Capt.  EIHott, 
in  his  official  account  of  1813,  and  to  substitute  in  its  place, 
charges  against  his  late  second  in  command  accusing  him, 
in  substance,  t)f  either  cowardice  or  treachery,  and  asking 
for  a  court  to  investigate  the  facts.     Although  the  govern- 
ment has  never  acted  on  these  charges,  it  is  matter  of  noto- 
riety that  they  have  given  rise  to  several  distinct  contro- 
versies, of  which  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  present  will  be 
the  last.     A  brief  narrative  of  the  history  of  these  contro- 
versies will  assist  the  reader  in  better   understanding  the 
subject. 

The  battle  of  Lake  lirie  was  remarkable  for  a  feature 
that  is  almost,  if  not  entirely,  without  example  in  the  annals 
of  naval  combats.  Although  ^he  Americans  eventually 
captured  every  English  vessel  engaged  against  them, 
their  own  commanding  ship  struck  her  colors.  This 
circumstance  naturally  gave  rise  to  some  feeling,  and  it  is 
in  proof  that  certain  of  the  officers  of  this  vessel  were 
early  engaged  in  looking  up  evidence  to  criminate  Capt. 
EHiott,  to  whose  conduct  they  ascribed  their  own  disaster. 

Cant.    Pfirrv    harl  brniiophf    with     him     Cpf\n\  TtlmA,^    Td^nA 

I     ■  J ,-^  —  -        ..----        ....,B         ^K-.-fvs     ^^ss^r^i^-       Jl  C73  tilST.!, 

several  officers,  natives  of  that  state,  or  young  men  who  had 
comn^enced  their  naval  career  under  his  immediate  auspn 


i<l 


rr 


6 


UATTLK    or    LAKE    CRII. 


I      « 


h     > 


! 


cci,  while  in  comnmnd  of  the  floiilhi  on  timt  coast.    These 
gentlemen,  witljout  an  exception  I  htliirvr,  took  hU\vh  with 
their  chief,  in  the  HnhHe()uent  ilispute,   and  the  enrhent  evi- 
dence I  can  find  of  any    tliinjr  hke  a  disposition  to  arraiirn 
Cupt.  Elhott,  in  connected  with  one  of  these  ofheerH.     Dr. 
U8h«;r  Parsons,  then  n  Hiir«rt>on'H  mate  on  hoard  the  Law- 
rence, th<?   vessel  originally  eonnnan(h'd   hy  Capt.  Perry, 
and  which  struck  to  the  enemy  after  he  had  left  to  go  on 
board  the  Niagara,  (^apt.  Klliott,  went  to  the    latter  vessel 
**  the  second  day  after  the  action'*  to  dress  the  wounds  ;  her 
own  surgeon  Dr.  Barton  heing  too  ill   at  the  time  to  attend 
to  the  dui).     On  this  occasion  Dr.  Parsons,  agreeahly  to 
his  own  statement,  questioned  some  of  the  wounded   men 
as  to  the   time  when  they  were  hurl — whether  it  w<'re  he- 
fore,  or  after  ('apt.   Perry   reached  their  hrig.     Ah  it  has 
been  alleged   that  Capt.   Elliott   betrayed  n  consciousness 
of  guilt,  hy  his   moving  so  early  in   the    matter,  this  cir- 
cumstance becomes  of  some    importance,  since  no  act  of 
Capt.  Elliott's,  in    connection  with  the  imputation  on  his 
conduct,  is  proved  to  have    taken  place  at  a  date  earlier 
than  Sept.  17,  or  a  week  after  the  battle. 

It  is  thus  substantially  shown  that  the  enemies  of  Capt. 
Elliott,  first  took  ground  in  this  controversy ;  or,  at  least, 
it  is  not  proved,  as  has  been  asserted,  that  Ca[)t.  Elliot  did. 
On  this  occasion,  several  letters  were  written,  by  different 
officers,  principally  if  not  all  of  the  Niagara,  in  ju-^cifica- 
tion  of  the  conduct  of  Capt.  Elliott,  most  of  which  appeared 
in  the  journals  of  tlie  vicinity  of  Lake  Erie.     Capt.  Perry 
took  no  part  against  his  subordinate,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
in  answer  to  an   application   from  Capt.  Elliott,   he  wrote 
that  officer  a  letter  of  the  date  of  Sept.  18th,  the  bottle  having 
been   fought  on  the  10th,    expressing  his  indignation  that 
any  rumors  to  his  prejudice  should  have  been  in  circula- 
tion.    There   is    no  reason   to  think  that  Capt.  Perry,   at 
that  time,  gave  any  other  opinion  in  public.   This  may  be 
termed  the  first  controversy,  though,  on  the  part  of  the  "ene- 
mies of  Capt.  Elliott,  little  was  openly  promulgated  to  the 
world.     In  a  short  time,  with  the  exception  of  n  few  on  the 
spot,  the  matter  was  in  a  great  degree  foro-otten^ 

In  1815,  however,  the  papers  of  this  country  published 
the  sentence  of  the  Court  Martial  which  had  sat  on  Capt. 


f 


BATTI.r.    OF    LAKK    RRIC. 


It.  Tliese 
rtidrtj  with 
irli(.'8t  evi- 
to  uirniirii 

i:<'r8.    Dr. 

tlu!    liliW- 

pt.  IV'rry, 

to  ^o  on 
ttrr  ves.st'l 
iikIs  ;   lu>r 

to  attend 
ixjeubly  tf» 
ded    men 

w<'re  Iie- 
Am  it  has 
ciousncss 

tliis  cir- 
iio  act  of 
n  on  his 
te  earhcr 

of  C/apt. 

at  least, 
lliiot  did. 

different 
jiHtifica- 
ippeared 
|»t.  Perry 
jontrury, 
he  wrote 
e  having 
tion  that 

circuia- 
•erry,   at 

may  be 
the  ene- 
id  to  the 
V  on  the 


f 


Barclay,  hiH   ofticerH  and   crew,  for  the  (hfcnt.     Owing  to 
the  carleHsneiis    with   which  HtatementH  are   made  in   the 
jonrnalH  ofthis  conntry,  some  ohnrrvations  from  a  London 
print,  that  Qccompanietl  the  firuhnj^of  the  court,  were  puh- 
hHhed  as  forming  part  of  the  sentence,  which  observations, 
among  other  errors  and  h)ose  statenw  iits,  asserted  that  the 
Niagara    ♦'  had    not    been   engairtMl,"   and    "  was   nuiking 
away,"  when    Capt.  IVrry  reaclicd  her.      A  (Jonrt  of  In- 
quiry was   sitting  in  the  Harbor  of  New  York,  when  this 
supposed  statement  of  tlie    Urilmh  court  first  appeared  in 
America,  and  ('apt.  FJMott  immediately  asked  that  the  facts 
niijrbt   be   investigated.     This  was  done,  such    witnesses 
bcintr  made  use  of,   as  the  vessels  present  at  New  York,  a 
considerable    force,  could  furnish.     Seven  witnesses  were 
examined,  two  of  the  lieutenants  of  the  Iiawr<  iice,  and  five 
ofHcers  of  the  Niagara;  the  result  being  an  honorable  ac- 
quittal of  Cai)t.  Elliott.      The  evi<lence   before  this  court 
was  conflicting,  both  as  to  <Ustances  and  as  to  time,  luit  all 
united  in  saying  that  the  Niagara  at  no  time  was  "making 
away.'* 

From  1815  to  1818,  nothing  public  appears  to  have  oc- 
curred, in  connection  with   this  affair.      In  the   latter  year, 
however,  Capt.  Elliott  wrote  to  Cajjt.  Perry,  stating  tliiit  he 
had  been  informed  that  the  hitter  had  condemnecrhis  con- 
duct on  the   lOth  Sept.  1813,  and  rcipiiring  explanations. 
By  tlie  correspondence  which  ensued,  it  would  seem  that 
the  gentlemen  materially  distrusted  each  others  account  of 
their  respective  behavior  in  the  battle.     In  this  correspond- 
ence Capt.  Elliott  challenged  Capt.  Pcjrry,  and  was  told, 
in  answer,  that  the    latter   had  prepared    charges  against 
him,  requesting  a  court  for  his  trial.      These  charges  ap- 
pear  to    have    been   sent,  accompanied  by  a  letter  to  the 
Secretary  of  the  date  of  August  10th  1818.     Along  with 
the  charges   there  appears,  also,  to  have    been  forwarded 
affidavits,  criminating  Capt.  Elliott,  and  signed  hy  Mossrs. 
Parsons,  Breese,  and    Taylor,  formerly  of  the  Lawrence, 
Mr.  Turner,   commander  of  the  Caledonia,  Mr.  Stevens, 
commander  of  the  Trippe,  Mr.   Champlin,  commander  of 

v-"ipiw!j,  ajiu  i.Tii.  ajiuv.iic-ii  5JI  ine  Ariel ;  an  oi  which 

were  vessels   engaged  in  the  action.     Of  these  witnesses, 
It  may  be  well  to  say,  that  Messrs.  Parsons,  Breese,  Tay- 


6 


lUTTLB   or    LAKE    ERIE. 


II' 


lor,  Chnniplin  arul  Tlrownrll,  all  nppenr  to  hnre  bewi 
nntivcN  of  HIkmIc  iMiancI,  and  to  liiivi;  uioompniiifd  Cnpt. 
Verry  when  he  left  that  utate  ;  utid  Mr.  TiirniT,  thoti^li  a 
iiativo  of  New  York,  had  iNteii  a  resident  of  KluMle  iNland 
fruin  childhuo<l,  and  wai  almost  idt^ntitied  with  the  fiiinily 
of  I'crry  hy  lonj|r  and  intimate  aMHociation.  Mr.  Stevens 
wa^  a  native  of  (varolina,  and  hud  no  other  connection  with 
his  commander  than  ^row  out  of  his  ordinary  service  ; 
though  it  is  known  that  he  quitted  Capt.  Klliott's  hrifi^  a 
few  days  liefore  the  hattle,  on  account  of  a  misunderstand- 
ing, and  that  he  suhie(|uently  believed  that  his  own  name 
wa«  left  out  of  the  ofViciul  account  of  the  action,  !n  conse> 

?uence  of  the  representations  of  the  latter.  Mr.  Champlin, 
am  told,  is  a  relation  of  Commodore  l'erry*8  wiilow.— 
These  facts  are  not  mentioned  with  a  design  to  impute 
intentional  mistatemcnts  to  any  of  the  witnesses,  thoug[h 
every  man  in  the  least  acquainted  with  human  nature, 
must  sec  that,  in  a  question  of  opinions,  circumstances  of 
this  sort  may  very  well  inHuence  the  mind,  without  the 
party  himself  bein^  conscious  by  wlint  his  Judgment  is 
swayed.  When  it  is  seen,  as  I  sholl  presently  show,  that 
one  of  the  controversialists,  Mr.  Tristam  IJurges,  modestly 
claims  the  Battle  of  Lake  Eric  **  as  a  part  of  the  maritime 
affairs  of  Rhode  Island,"*  the  fact  obtains  peculiar  signifi- 
cance. One  thing  is  certain  ;  no  officer  out  of  the  Luw- 
rence,  Mr.  Stevens  excepted,  is  found  to  give  testimony 
against  Capt.  Elliott,  unless  a  native,  or  a  resident  of  that 
State,  and  more  th  m  usually  connected  with  his  com- 
mander. 

The  government  did  not  act  on  Captain  Perry^s  charg- 
es. Two  stories  are  in  circulation  concerning  their  fate. 
According  to  one,  the  Secretary  being  absent,  these  charges 
were  sent  to  the  President,  who  immediately  consulted 
Com.  Decatur  on  the  subject.  Com.  Decatur  was  an  in- 
timate friend  of  Capt.  Perry's,  and  he  is  said  to  have  depre- 
cated the  course  of  the  latter,  and  to  have  begged  the  charg- 
es, in  order  to  gain  time  to  advise  his  Oiend  to  abandon 
a  course  which  brought  him  so  obviously  in  contradiction 
with  himself.  The  request  was  granted,  and  the  charges 
slumbered  in  Com.  Decatur's  keeping,  until  that  officer*s 
death.     This  statement  is  denied,  on  the  other  hand.     It 

*See  Burges'a  Lectures,  Prefacopage  5^  ' 


BATTLE   or    LAKE    KIIIB. 


118  coni- 


IN  Nfiut  that  till)  charKOf  M^'fer  wero  wittulrnwn  hy  nuy  one, 
though  it  !■  udttiitted  that  nothing  oHkiul  wna  over  ilone 


with  thi*m.     Th 


th 


lyupt  IVrry,  on  (|UittiMg 
hiri  liiHt  crttiii«,  \ci\  couivM  of  \nn  churgt^i,  with  th«  iiccom* 
IHiiiing  iif)i«luvitN,  in  Com.  Di^catiir^i*  kfc>ping,  to  rcprl  uny 
attack  thut  might  proceed  from  C>apt.  Klhottin  hiHahM«;nci*, 
and  tliat  thcM;  cnpitt  were  in  the  hand*  of  C/oni.  Decatur, 
at  his  death.  The  ditVcrcncc  is  not  very  material,  and  it  it 
quite  poHMihht  that  \w\\\  MtatementH  may  Im^  true.  It  MeeniM 
to  he  eertain  that  Capt.  Viitry  directed  Much  copies  to  be 
trnuHmitted  to  Com.  Decatur  for  the  purpoHe  declared,  and 
it  in  hy  no  means  impnihahle  that  Decatur  may  have 
thought  it  wiMCNt  lo  conceal  his  prev!<»us  posMesHion  of  the 
originais.     Of  the  truth,  I  profess  to  know  no  more. 

In  the  unfortunate  meeting  when  Com.  Decatur  fell, 
Capt.  Elliott  acted  as  the  friend  of  Com.  Uarron.  This 
occurred  in  March,  18*20.  Perry  had  died  in  August, 
1819.  Among  the  papers  of  Decatur  were  found  the  orig- 
inal charges  of  Perry,  against  Capt.  Elliott,  or  their  copies, 
or  both,  a8  the  case  may  have  been,  together  with  the  af- 
fidavits. A  few  montliH  later,  when  time  had  been  given  to 
examine  the  papers,  these  charges  and  alFidavits  wero 
first  laid  before  the  world,  by  a  private  publication  at  Wash- 
ington, in  consequence  of  his  connection  with  the  recent 
duel,  as  is  affirmed  hy  Com.  Elliott.  Of  this  fact,  1  pro- 
fess to  know  nothing,  f)eyond  the  manner  of  tho  publica- 
tion. This  appeal  to  the  public  brought  replies  ;  new 
flucMtions  first  appeared  in  the  affidavits,  and  rebutting  tes- 
timony was  obtained  by  Capt.  Elliott  to  meet  the  new 
cliar«ies.  Neorly  all  the  testimony  which  has  appeared  in 
the  case,  that  had  not  been  brought  out  in  the  discussion 
of  1813,  or  the  court  of  1815,  seems  to  have  been  pro- 
duced in  1820-21,  either  in  tho  affidavits  accompanying 
the  charges,  or  in  the  letters  or  affidavits  that  succeeded 
their  publication. 

The  subject  attracted  a  good  deal  of  attention  in  the 
naval  circles,  in  1821,  but  did  not  penetrate  the  public 
mind.  It  soon  died  away,  and  may  be  said  to  have  lain 
dormant  until  it  was  revived,  in  1834,  in  consequence  of 
the  affiEiir  of  the  figure  head.  The  assault  on  Capt.  El- 
liott, at  that  time,  was  a  political  attack,  that  wai  charac- 


10 


BATTLE    OP   LAKE    ERIE. 


h 


t 


H    I 


I     i 


terized  by  tlie  rnuligriancy,  disregurd  of  principle,  and  of 
any  thing  else  but  the  end  in  view,  which  are  usual  on 
such  occasions.  It  dragged  into  notice  all  tiic  testimony 
that  coidd  be  collected  against  that  gentleman,  keeping 
out  of  sight,  with  sedulous  care,  every  thing  that  had  been 
advanced  in  his  favor.  It  was  an  attack  marked  by  prof- 
ligacy, and  in  the  main  sustained  by  political  hacks.  With 
the  historian,  it  ought  not  to  weigh  a  feather.  I  am  not 
aware,  that  any  personal  friend  of  the  late  Com  Perry 
had  any  agency  in  this  rally  of  1834.  One  of  its  etiects, 
however,  was  to  produce  a  biography  of  Com.  iiiliiott, 
which  made  its  appearance  in  1835. 

The  biography  of  Com.  Elliott  is  a  work  of  considera- 
ble  ingenuity,  but  I  am  far  from  subscribing  to  all  its  con- 
clusions. It  is  Lie  reasoning  of  a  lawyer,  rather  than  of  a 
seaman,  and  is  written  too  much  in  the  feeling  of  partisan- 
ship not  to  be  obnoxious  to  criticism.  Still  it  is  infinitely 
fairer  in  spirit,  more  logical,  and  every  way  more  lespect- 
able,  than  either  of  the  works  to  which  it  is  my  duty  now 
to  reply.  It  has  one  merit,  that  is  altogether  wanting  to 
my  adversaries  ;  ii  puts  both  sides  of  the  question  fairly 
before  the  reader,  giving  the  testimony  of  both  sides,  and 
ieaving  its  own  reasoning  exposed  to  the  just  inferences  of 
the  hostile  evidence.  This  simple  and  manly  course  is  im- 
itated by  none  of  those  who  have  assailed  Capt.  Elliott. 
The  last  have  had  the  hardihood  to  suppose  the  public 
might  be  hoodwinked  in  an  affair  of  this  importance,  and 
have  in  effect  given  the  testimony  of  only 'their  own  aiide 
of  the  case. 

My  own  work  was  published  in  the  spring  of  1839.  The 
part  which  relates  to  the  Battle  of  Lake  Erie,  was  written 
after  a  long  and  critical  examination  of  all  the  evidence  I 
could  obtain,  and  M^ith  a  firm  conviction  that  the  contro- 
versy that  had  grown  up  out  of  it,  was  not  in  a  fit  state  to 
pass  into  history.  This  was  all  I  had  to  decide,  and  hav- 
ing  made  up  my  mind  to  this  one  fact,  all  I  had  to  do  was 
to  follow  the  official  account,  and  to  give  to  the  world  those 


„.i.;i„  T 


uvOiuc'd 


touching  on  any  that  I  thought  would  admit  of  doubt.  This 
course  T.as  rigidly  followed,  and  it  is  now  :ny  task  to  jus- 
tify what  I  have  done,  while  I  expose  the  errors,  to  use  a 
mild  term,  of  those  who  have  gainsayed  it. 


I 


BATTLE    OF    LAKE    ERIE. 


11 


»Ic,  and  of 
usual  on 
testimony 
I,  keeping 
t  had  been 
d  hy  prof- 
;k8.    With 

I  am  not 
om  Perry 
its  effects, 
1.    ii^liiott, 

considera- 

II  its  con- 
tliaii  of  c 

partisan- 
infinitely 
3  lespect- 
duty  now 
anting  to 
on  fairly 
sides,  and 
jrences  of 
irse  isim- 
t.  Elhott. 
lie  public 
mce,  and 
own  jside 

!39.  The 
IS  written 
ndence  I 
e  contro- 
it  state  to 
and  hav- 
o  do  was 
>rld  those 

uvuiucu 

bt.  This 
?k  to  jus- 
to  use  a 


The  first  attack  on  the  History  was  made  by  an^article 
in  the  Commercial  Advertiser,  which  ran  througli  four  num- 
liers,  and  for  which,  as  it  contained  gross  personal  imputa- 
tions, 1  prosecuted  the  editor  for  a  libel.  It  is  now  under- 
stood tliat  this  article  was  written  by  Mr.  William  A.  Duer, 
late  President  of  Columbia  College. 

A  review  in  the  North  American  followed,  which  assailed 
tlic  account  of  the  Battle  of  Lake  Erie,  making  it  a  partic- 
ular ciiarge  against  the  historian  that  he  did  not  distinctly 
state  that  the  English  squadron  was  superior  in  force  to  the 
American,  because  the  fcrmer  carried  63  and  the  latter  on- 
ly 54  guns.  As  this  article  has  been  admitted  to  be  the 
work  of  Capt.  Slidell  Mackenzie,  of  the  Navy,  it  becomes 
identified,  in  a  great  degree,  with  the  subsequent  labors  of 
the  same  gentleman,  on  this  subject. 

A  lecture  di^livered  before  the  Historical  Society  of  Rhode 
Island,  by  Mr.  Tristam  Barges,  followed  up  the  blow. 
This  lecture  had  been  delivered  some  time  previously,  and 
of  course  contained  no  direct  allusion  to  the  History  ;  but  it 
was  given  to  the  world  with  loud  announcements  of  the 
withering  effect  it  was  to  produce  on  that  History,  and, 
when  published,  its  logic,  facts  and  diagrams  were  virtual- 
ly proclaimed  to  be  unanswerable ;  more  especially  by  the 
New- York  American,  New-York  Commercial  Advertiser, 
and  one  or  two  others  of  characters  too  questionable,  and 
of  reasoning  powers  too  feeble  to  require  naming.  It  now 
remains  to  see  how  far  these  eulogiums  were  merited.  'Not 
satisfied  with  these  attacks  and  replies,  some  of  which  had 
a  specific  gravity,  that  aided  in  producing  their  own  fall, 
Capt.  Mackenzie  made  a  fresh  as3ault,in  a  work  called  a 
Biography  of  Com.  Perry.  This  book,  he  avows  in  t'le 
preface,  was  written  at  the  request  of  some  of  Com.  Per- 
ry's friends,  as  an  answer  to  my  attempts  to  lessen  the  fame 
of  that  distinguished  officer.  I  greatly  regret  that  such 
an  answer  to  any  such  imaginary  attempts  on  my  part, 
should  have  been  made,  for  it  compels  me  to  expose  facts 
I  would  willingly  suppress,  and  I  entertain  no  doubt  that 
the  friends  of  Com.  Perry  will  regret  it  still  more,  by  the 
time  the  subject  is  finally  disposed  of. 

It  may  be  well,  here,  to  inquire  into  the  situations  of 
the  different  individuals   who  have  thus  been  the  agents 


12 


BATTLE    OP    LAKE    ERIK. 


I 


of  an  attempt  to  bring  me  and  my  labors  into  disrepute  with 
the  nation.  Mr.  Burges  is  tolerably  innocent  as  respects 
me,  his  lecture  having  been  written  pretty  much  to  prove 
that  the  Battle  of  Lake  Erie  was"  a  part  of  the  maritime 
affairs  of  Rhode  Island."  As  my  history  has  no  such  ob- 
ject in  view,  it  is  not  surprising  that  our  accounts  conflict  a 
little.  This  difference  compels  me  to  justify  my  own,  by 
demonstrating  the  value  of  those  of  the  other  side.  Per- 
sonally, I  know  nothing  to  influence  Mr.  Burges  but  the 
circumstance  that  he  was  a  Rhode  Island  man,  and  that  he 
had  given  himself  so  difficult  a  task. 

Mr.  Duer  is  nearly  a  stranger  to  me.  His  article  was 
written  with  peculiar  malignancy,  and  is  marked  by  state- 
ments, misquotations  and  general  features,  that  v  ill  compel 
me  to  put  such  a  brand  on  it,  that  the  ex-president  will  not 
be  desirous  of  claiming  his  offspring  hereafter.  Some  per- 
sons may  think  it  pertinent  if  I  add  that  Mr.  Duer  is 
Mr.  Mackenzie's  uncle  by  marriage. 

The  agency  of  Capt.  Mackenzie  in  this  affair  is  probably 
to  be  imputed  to  his  connection  with  the  family  of  Perry, 
the  present  Com.  M.  C.  Perry  having  married  his  sister. 
How  far  such  a  circumstance  would  be  lik'^ly  to  influence 
this  accurate  and  logical  Historian,  would  depend  on  his 
character,  as  connected  with  his  general  sense  of  right ; 
and  I  shall  leave  the  reader  to  draw  his  own  inferences, 
after  the  testimony  which  will  bear  on  this  gentleman's 
manner  of  dealing  with  facts,  shall  be  laid  fairly  before 
him. 

First,  then,  in  reply  to  the  lecture  of  Mr.  Burges :  It 
is  to  be  presumed  that  the  State  of  Rhode  Island  will  not 
defend  the  literarv  merit  of  this  very  extraordinary  produc- 
tion, of  which  the  very  first  sentence  is  so  peculiar,  that  it 
is  welcome  to  appropriate  it  to  itself  also.  "  It  is  the  pur- 
pose of  the  present  lecture,"  commences  Mr.  Burges  "  to 
give  a  concise  narrative  of  the  fleet  and  battle  on  Lake 
Erie."  What  is  meant  by  a  "  narrative  of  a  fleet,"  I  am  un- 
able to  say,  but,  as  large  portions  of  the  explanations  of 
this  lecture  are  utterly  unintelligible,  it  is  fair  to  suppose 
they  refer  to  this  particular  branch  of  the  subject.  ^  But 
passing  over  the  poetry  of  the  lecture,  which  is  far  from 
inconsiderable  in  quantity,  and  leaving  the  enigma  to  b^ 


BATTLE   OF   LAKE   ERIE. 


13 


examined  as  they  may  arise,  let  us  proceed  at  once  to  the 
material  points.     I  object  to  Mr.  Burges — 

Ist.  That  he  assumes  general  facts  in  direct  oppositioa 
to  known  truths ; 

2.  That  his  witnesses,  according  to  his  own  showing, 
contradict  each  other,  on  important  points  ; 

3d.  That  he  sometimes  contradicts  his  own  witnesses. 

4th.  That  hid  statements  are  often  opposed  to  the  known 
laws  of  nature  ;  and  that  they  involve  gross  physical  im- 
possibilities. 

If  all  this  be  shown,  it  is  fair  to  presume  that  the  rest  of 
the  republic  will  be  ready  to  inform  the  State  of  Rhode 
Island,  that  it  is  welcome  to  its  Lecturer,  whatever  be  the 
case  as  it  respects  its  claims  to  the  victory  of  Lake  Erie. 

In  his  opening  remarks,  Mr.  Burges  has  the  following 
statements,  all  of  which  are  opposed  to  known  truths: 

He  says—"  in  the  summer  of  1812,  Oliver  Hazard  Per- 
ry, of  Rhode  Island,  a  young  man.  Captain  in  the  United 
States  Navy,  &c."  Perry  was  not  made  a  captain  until 
after  the  battle  of  Lake  Erie,  his  commission  being  dated 
Sept.  lOth  1813,  the  day  of  his  victory. 

He  says,  '*  In  the  winter  of  181*2-13  he,  (Perry)  was  or- 
dered to  Lake  Erie,  to  take  the  command,  and  provide  a 
fleet  for  that  station  "  This  is  said  in  a  connection  which 
means  that  this  order  was  given  to  Perry,  previously  to 
joining  the  Lake  station,  at  all.  It  is  an  error ;  Com. 
Chauncey  assigning  the  duty  on  which  Perry  was  sent. 

He  says,  "  The  enemy  had  then  (when  Perry  was  sent 
to  Lake  Erie)  in  those  waters,  two  ships,  two  brigs,  &c." 
It  is  well  known  that  one  of  the  ships,  of  a  force  equalling 
all  the  rest  of  the  British  vessels,  was  not  ready,  or  launch- 
ed, until  a  short  time  previously  to  the  battle. 

He  says,  "  The  British  had,  hy  land,  as  well  as  by  wa- 
ter, the  entire  command  of  that  lake,  (Erie)"  &c.  This 
IS  notoriously  untrue,  the  enemy  never  having  command 
of  the  south  shore  of  Lake  Erie,  with  the  exception  of  a 
temporary  possession  of  a  portion  near  the  west  end.  If 
true,  Perry  equipped  his  squadron  in  what  was  virtually  an 
enemy's  country  ! 

He  says,  «  Every  Yankee  is  an  "axe-man  ;  and  all  the 
companions  of  Perry  were  of  the  full  blood ;  and  the  most 


c 


t'(   ! 


I   i 


u 


14 


BATTLl   OP  LAKI   CRIl. 


of  them  the  best  of  thftt  blood,  the  Rhode  Island  stock. — 
ThcHc,  (the  Yankees  who  accompanied  Perry  from  New- 
port) with  a  few  more  shipwrights,  smiths,  caulkers,  rig- 
gers and  sail-makers,  built  and  equipped  this  fleet ;  and 
launched  the  whole  into  the  harbor  of  Erie,  rigged  and 
ready  to  sail,  in  about  ninety  days  after  the  first  blow  was 
struck.'*  Mr.  Surges,  might  as  wdi  have  said  that  his  axe- 
men built  a  cathedral  in  the  woods.  The  vessels  were  con- 
structed under  a  contract,  by  regular  New- York  ship- 
wrights, sent  to  Erie  for  that  purpose.  The  men  that  Per- 
ry took  with  him,  were  flotilla-men,  better  than  common  it  is 
believed,  but  as  little  able  to  construct  a  sliip,  as  any  others 
of  their  class* 

He  says,  ♦'  They  (the  Newport  boys^  built  from  the 
atump,  six  vessels  ;  the  Lawrence,  of  twenty  guns — two 
long  twelves,  and  eighteen  twenty  four  pound  carronades  ; 
the  Niagara,  of  two  long  twelves,  and  eighteen  twenty-four 
pound  carronades  ;  the  Ariel,  of  four  guns,  18  and  24  lbs  ; 
the  Scorpion,  of  two  guns,  thirty-twos  ;  the  Porcupine, 
of  one  gun,  a  thirty-two ;  and  the  Tigress,  of  one  gun,  a 
thirty-two."  Now,  all  of  these  armaments,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  the  two  last,  are  wrong.  The  Lawrence  and 
Niagara  had  each  eighteen  thirty-two  pound  carronades  ; 
the  Ariel  had  four  twelves ;  and  the  Scorpion  had  one 
twenty-four. 

He  says,  *'  T'  British  vessels  were  stout  built,  with  thick 
bulwarks  of  solid  oak  ;  but  the  American  were  built  in  a 
hasty  manner,  and  intended  merely  to  carry  guns  and  men  ; 
and  bring  them  down  along  side  of  their  adversary.^"*  This 
passage  must  have  given  great  satisfaction  to  the  learned 
members  of  the  Society  before  whom  the  lecture  was  read. 

He  says,  "  The  British  fleet  had  a  veteran  commander, 
the  American  a  young  sailor.  Barclay  had  conquered  with 
Nelson,  at  Trafalgar ;  Perry  had  probably  never  seen  the 
combined  movement  of  ships,  in  a  fl^et,  formed  in  line  of 
battle."  Capt.  Barclay  is  understood  to  have  been  thiriy-two, 
when  he  fought  this  battle ;  Perry  was  born  in  August, 
21st,  1785,  and  coasequeatly  wanted  just  twenty  days  of 
being  twenty-eight,  on  this  occasion. 

He  says,  **  The  vessels  of  the  enemy  were  impervious  to 
^  shot  of  our  caxvonades,^^  If  so,  it  is  clear  Perry  him- 


1 

'i 

sci 

'm 

W£ 

1 

Tl 

1 

an 

1 

ca] 

m 

th< 

■ 

all 

I 

sai 

1 

mc 

fl 

Tl 

■ 

Ba 

I 

ca 

1 

wa 

1 

CI 

<'fl 

by 

sh( 

m 

lee 

1 

Al 

1 

in 

1 

fin 

.  ■;« 

mt 

the 

1 

wl 
wi 

ea< 

Bl 

ret 

bri 

pa 

ne 

tol 

« 

qu 
He 

•1 

dis 

M 

fer 

m 

Bu 

1 

rer 

BATTLE    or   LAKE   ERIE* 


1$ 


Stock.— 
cm  New- 

kers,  rig- 
eet ;  and 
jBi^ged  and 
blow  was 
t  his  axe- 
were  con- 
)rk  ship- 
that  Per- 
imon  it  is 
uy  others 

from  the 
jns — two 
ronades  ; 
enty-four 
d  24  Jbs ; 
jrcupine, 
le  gun,  a 
li  the  ex- 
;nce  and 
ronades ; 
had  one 

nth  thick 
milt  in  a 
:nd  men  ; 
."  This 
I  learned 
^as  read, 
inlander, 
jred  with 

seen  the 
in  line  of 
liny-two, 

August, 
'  days  of 


self,  had  little  personal  agency  in  capturing  them,  as  he 
was  on  board  of  vessels  armed  with  this  species  of  gun. 
This  mihtates  a  good  deal  against  the  claim  of  Rhode  Isl- 
and to  the  victory. 

He  says,  »*  In  the  whole  fleet  (the  British)  were  three 
captains,  and  the  commanders.  While  in  the  American, 
there  was  (were)  but  two  captains.  Perry  and  Elliott; 
all  the  other  vessels  were  commanded  by  lieutenants, 
sailing-masters,  or  midshipmen.*'  There  was  no  com- 
modore, nor  any  captain  on  the  lake,  in  either  squadron. 
There  were  two  commanders  on  the  side  of  the  English, 
Barclay  and  Finnis  ;  and  two  on  the  side  of  the  Ameri- 
cans, Perry  and  Elliott  The  commodore  of  the  English 
was  Sir  James  Lucas  Yeo  ;  and  of  the  Americans,  Isaac 
Chauncey. 

It  would  be  easy  to  extend  this  list  of  the  errors,  made 
by  Mr.  Burges,  in  stating  his  case,  but  enough  has  been 
shown  to  prove  the  exceeding  carelessness  with  which  a 
lecture  that  professes  to  correct  history,  has  been  written. 
All  the  foregoing  blunders  are  fairly  stated,  having  nothing 
in  the  context  to  qualify  them,  and  all  may  be  found  in  the 
first  ten  or  twelve  pages  of  Mr.  Burges's  opening. 

As  my  answer  to  Capt.  Mackenzie  will  meet  the  more 
material  allegations  of  Mr.  Burges's  facts,  as  they  relate  to 
the  battle,  I  shall  content  myself  with  showing  the  truth  of 
what  has  been  said,  in  the  four  heads  of  objections.  We 
will  therefore  proceed  to  the  second. 

His  witnesses,  according  to  his  own  showing,  contradict 
each  other  on  important  points-  "  He  (Perry)"  says  Mr. 
Burges, "  ran  down  till  every  carronade  and  musket  might 
reach  its  mark.  Taylor  (the  sailing-master  of  Perry's 
brig)  says  within  canister  distance  ;  Perry  says,  in  his  des- 
patch and  account  of  the  battle,  at  half  canister  ;  and  Yar- 
nell,  the  1st  lieutenant  who  was  ordered  to  note  if  the  shot 
told,  says  at  half  musket  sh^:  ^  50  yards,  150  feet;  not 
quite  so  far  as  from  where  1  stand  to  the  foot  of  the  bridge." 
Here  we  have  three  witnesses  to  the  material  fact  of  the 
distance  at  which  Perry  engaged  the  enemy,  and  each  dif- 
fering from  the  other  !  As  if  this  were  not  sufficient,  Mr. 
Burges  gives  what  he  says  is  an  extract  from  the  Law- 
rence's log  book,  page  83,  in  which  are  the  following 


Nl 


!■: 


Mp" 


iii' 


16 


BATTLE    OF    LAKE    ERIE. 


words—**  In  half  nn  hour  we  (the  Lawrence)  came  within 
musket  shot  of  the  enemy's  new  niiip  Detroit."  Here  tlien, 
we  get  canister,  half-canister,  musket,  and  hulf-musket 
shot,  as  the  distances  of  these  four  witnesses;  each  dif- 
ering  from  all  the  others  ! 

He  sometimes  contradicts  his  own  witnesses.  This  Mr. 
Burges  has  done,  in  the  instance  just  quoted.  After  giv- 
ing '*  canister  shot,"  "  half-canister,"  *♦  musket"  and  "hnlf- 
musket,"  as  the  distances  at  which  Perry  engaged  in  the 
Lawren«;e,  he  very  cooly  sets  down  this  distance,  himself, 
as  *»  150  feet !"  Not  satisfied  with  taking  this  great  liher- 
ty  with  the  testimony,  he  ^roeson  to  say,  "  In  this  position, 
at  this  slaughtering  distance,  the  Lawrence  encountered 
the  Detioit,  and  there  sustained  the  conflict  with  her,  and 
the  vessels  which  came  to  her  aid,  for  two  and  one  half 
hours."  page  36.  That  is  to  say,  the  Lawrence  fought  the 
Detroit,  Hunter,  and  Charlotte,  in  smooth  water,  two  hours 
and  a  half,  within  150  feet !  Not  satisfied  with  this  tour  de 
force,  Mr.  Burges,  by  necessary  implication  makes  the  Cal- 
edonia, a  brig  totally  without  quarters,  join  in  this  melee, 
and  actually  pass  between  the  combatants  !  I  presume  it 
is  unnecessary  to  tell  any  man  who  has  the  slightest  knowl- 
edge of  gunnery,  that  such  an  occurrence  is  virtually  im- 
possible. This  is  just  the  distance  at  which  two  ninetv- 
gun  ships  would  go  foul,  to  avoid  each  other's  fire.  Missing 
would  be  impossible,  and  of  course,  a  protracted  engage- 
ment impossible.  When  ships  touch,  the  guns  cannot  be 
effectively  trained  ;  but,  at  150  feet,  shot,  of  all  sizes,  could 
be  sent  directly  into  the  ports  of  the  antagonist.  Ten  min- 
utes would  settle  the  fate  of  the  Pennsylvania,  under  such 
circumstances.  Capt.  Mackenzie,  a  writer  who  is  by  no 
means  diffident  on  the  subject  of  assertions  to  effect  his 
object,  and  who  endeavors  to  place  Perry  in  as  perilous 
circumstances  as  possible,  puts  this  distance  at  350  yards. 
I  believe,  myself,  that  the  Lawrence  backed  her  top-sail 
when  distant  500  yards  from  the  Detroit ;  though,  after  she 
was  crippled,  she  doubtless  sagged  nearer  to  the  enemy. 

Take  another  specimen  of  Mr.Burges's  disrespect  for  his 
own  testimony,  "  Engage  your  adversary,  each  as  you 
come  up,  as  before  directed,"  he  rightly  says,  was  Perry's 
last  order,  as  he  went  into  action.     "  This,"  Mr.  Burges 


BATTLE    OF   LAKB    ERIC. 


17 


ndds,  '*  be  it  remembered,  wns,  in  close  action  at  half  ca^ 
bk*s  kn^th.^^  pu^e35.  Now,  in  bis  appendix,  Mr  Uiirges 
gives  Perry's  own  account  of  his  order  of  battle,  in  tbese 
words — '*  An  order  directing  in  wbat  manner  tbe  Hne  of 
battle  should  bo  formed  ;  tlic  several  vessels  to  keep  with- 
in half  cablets  length  of  each  other ^  &-c."  page  99.  Here 
then  Mr.  Hurges  cooly  puts  down  the  distance  between  the 
American  ships,  ns  tlie  distance  at  which  the  enemy  was  to 
be  fought,  and  in  direct  opposition  to  Perry's  own  account, 
this  being  every  syllable  that  was  said  of  half-cable's 
length  in  the  orders!  Half-cable's  length  is  360  feet,  and 
Capt.  Perry  would  not  be  apt  to  order  vessels  without  quar- 
ters, carrying  long  tnirty-twos,  to  engage  at  a  distance  thnt 
would  just  suit  their  enemy,  and  be  of  no  advantage  to 
themselves.  Nothing  is  said  of  any  distance,  in  Perry's 
orders,  beyond  the  general  command  for  close  action,  which 
means  within  effective  range  of  the  missiles  relied  on. — 
Capt.  Mackenzie  thinks  Perry  v  as  in  close  action,  at  350 
yards;  and,  as  this  was  considerably  more  than  a  whole 
cable's  length,  the  commanding  officer  must  have  set  a 
very  bad  example  to  his  subordinates,  if  Mr.  Burges's  ac- 
count of  his  orders  were  true.  As  Perry  led,  he  would 
have  been  the  first  man  to  disobey  his  own  orders. 

It  would  be  easy  to  show  other  instances,  in  which  Mr. 
Burges  disregarded  his '  witnesses,  but  I  paws  them  by,  to 
come  at  once  to  the  weakest  and  most  extravagant  of  all 
his  assertions.  *  His  statements  are  often  opposed  to  the 
known  laws  of  nature,  and  they  sometimes  involve  gross 
physical  impossibilities !' 

In  his  account  of  the  battle,  Mr.  Burges  says,  "that  the 
Niagara  still  hugged  the  wind^  and  kept  at  a  distance., 
freshened  as  the  breeze  was,  by  such  a  blaze  jrom  so  many 
guns  for  two  hours  and  a  half."  page  43.  Here  we  have 
the  novel  proposition  that  a  cannonading  "  freshens  the 
wind,"  whereas  seamen  believe  it  "  kills  the  wind"  as  they 
term  it.  As  counteracting  forces  have  a  tendency  to  neu- 
tralize each  other,  we  must  think,  to  say  nothing  of  some 
experience  on  the  subject,  that  the  sailors  have  the  best 
of  it. 

But  this  is  a  trifle,  compared  to  what  is  to  follow.  That 
the  reader  may  better  understand  Mr.  Burges'  extraordi- 
2* 


i 


!!iirr 


l!    tUH 


18 


BATTLE    or   LAKE   ERIE. 


nary  theories,  we  here  give  the  second  of   the   diagrams, 
with  which  he  has  adorned  his  book.     At  page  38,  of  the 
lecture  the  reader  will  find  the  following — "  He  (Cnptaiu 
Elliott^  admits  in  that  hook  (Life  of  Com.  Elliott)  that  in- 
stead of  making  all  nail,  and  running  down  upon  his  ad- 
versary, the  Queen  Chailotte,  as  he  liad   been  ordered  to 
do,  no  less  than  three  times,  and  engaging  her  at  half  ca- 
blets length,  \\f)  threw  his  topsail  to  the  mast  and   brailed 
up  his  jib,  so  as  to  keep  his  position  on  the  water  as  nearly 
as  practicable.     Every  nautical  man  will  tell  us  that  this 
position  of  the  sails  would  hold  his  ^hip  to  the  wind,  and 
keep  her  in  her  then  jjre&ent place  ;  so  that  all  the  ships  en- 
gaged, would  be  sagging  slowly  aheady  and  to  the  leeward  ; 
until  the  Caledonia  and   the  Lawrence  were    directly  6e- 
twetn  the  Niagara  and  the  Detroit  and  the  Queen   Char- 
lotte.^"*     I  take  it  nothing,  as  a  proposition,  in  the  English 
language,  is  more  extraordinary  than  this.     The  diagram 
will  help  the  reader  in  understanding  it,  though  Mr.   Bur- 
ges's  text,  among  other  extravagances,  contradicts  this  very 
diagram.     Let  us  look  at  the  diagram.     The  letters  d  &. 
6,  and  the  figures  4  &.  3,  are  the  ships  engaged  ;  a,  being 
the    Charlotte,    6,    the  Detroit  (English    vessels)   4,    the 
Caledonia,  and  3  tbe  Lawrence,  (Americans.)     These  four 
vessels  are  "  sagging  slowly  ahead,  and  to  the  leeward." 
Of  course,  their  movement  was  from  the  point  6,  the  spot 
at  which  Mr.  Burges  says  the  Niagara  threw  her  '*  topsail 
to  the  mast  and  brailed  up  her  jib,"  and  where  all  seamen 
agree  in  saying  that  she  must  have  virtually  remained — to- 
ward the  lower  angle  of  the  diagram,  or  in  a  direct  line 
away  from  the  Niagara,  until  the  Caledonia  and  Lawrence 
got,  in  consequence  of  their  drift  ahead  and  to  leeward^  in 
company  with  the  Detroit  and  Charlotte,  between  her  and 
the  two  latter  vessels !     Now,  I  respectfully  submit,  this 
could  not  be  accomplished  unless  the  four  vessels  engaged 
drifted  round  the  whole  eaith,  in  a  straight  litie,  regardless 
of  islands  and  continents,  in  the  short  space  of  two  hours 
and  a  half,  or  during  the  battle.     If  the  Niagara  lay  sta- 
tionary at  the  point  6,  and  3,  4,  rf  &  6  sagged  ahead  and  to 
leeward,  until  they  brought  3  &,  4,  between  6,  and  6  &  rf,  it 
could  only  happen  by  this  prccess.     Absurd  as  all  this  is, 
Mr.  Burges^s  proposition  will  admit  of  no  other  solution. 


BATTLI   OF   LAKE    ERIE. 


a 


19 


DIAGRAM,  NO.  3. 


20 


# 


BATTLE   OP    LAKE   IRIX. 


DIAGRAM,  NO.  3. 


BATTI.I    OF    LAKE    ERIK. 


31 


I  know  he  did  not  mean  thig ;  but  he  iaya  it,  in  effect.  What 
he  reully  rnrant,  he  probably  did  not  know  himself.  Hif 
head  wiih  u  jumble  of  iiccuiintionH  and  cliar^oa  a^minit 
Com.  Elliott,  and  backed  up  hy  the  gallant  little  State  of 
Rhode  Island,  he  ventures  on  thig  mathematical  prodigy. 

One  feela  surprised  that  a  man  of  talents,  as  Mr.  Jlurges 
is  said  to  be,  (I  know  nothing  of  him  personally)  should 
presume  to  utter  such  trash  to  a  Historical  Society.  Had 
as  it  is,  however,  it  was  much  applauded  by  the  New  York 
American,  New  York  Commercial  Advertiser,  and  other 
leading  jcmrnals  of  that  seat  of  virtue  and  intelligence,  the 
great  commercial  emp(»rium  of  this  great  commercial  coun- 
try, to  say  nothing  of  other  papers,  from  which,  as  they  are 
conducted  by  men  equally  without  truth,  education,  or 
talents,  nothing  better  was  to  be  expected  I 

Let  us,  now,  look  at  Mr.  Uurges's  third  diagram.  The 
reader  will  find  it  on  the  opposite  page.  In  this  diagram, 
the  author  has  placed  a  star,  at  the  point  where  he  saya 
Capt.  Perry  found  the  Lawrence.  A  dotted  line  shows  the 
course  he  steered  in  cutting  the  British  line.  A  vessel 
numbered  3,  represents  the  position  occupied  by  the  Law- 
rence, at  this  moment.  Now,  at  pages  44,  64, 66,  &  67,  the 
reader  will  find  Mr.  Burges's  text  on  the  subject  of  the 
relative  positions  of  these  two  vessels,  when  Perry  went  on 
board  the  Niagara.  At  page  66,  he  says  ;  **  The  Law- 
rence was  within  half  musket  shot  of  the  enemy  when 
Perry  left  her,  and  the  Niagara  was  out  of  cannon  shot 
when  he  reached  her.''  In  a  word,  the  whole  of  Mr.  Bur- 
ges's  theory  is  to  maintain  that  Capt.  Elliott  had  the 
Niagara  about  a  mile  to  windward  of  the  Lawrence,  at 
this  moment.  At  page  54,  he  says  that  the  Niagara  was 
as  far  to  windward  of  the  Lawrence,  at  this  instant,  as 
eight  men  could  pull  a  cutter,  in  smooth  water,  in  ten 
minutes.  "  Some  oarsmen  tell  me  two,"  he  adds,  '♦  some 
one  and  a  half,  but  none  less  than  one  mile.  So  far  from 
the  Lawrence,  and  &  little  farther,  half  musket  shot,  from 
".-.  -. w„t»^ ,  rra=  -.;ac  iiiaguru  wiicii  i-crfy  reaciieu  iier  deck." 
The  star,  then,  is  intended  to  represent  a  point,  at  least, 
one  mile  to  windward  of  the  place  where  Perry  left  the 
Lawrence.  But  No.  3,  represents  the  Lawrence  to  wind- 
ward of  the  star,  and,  the  last  being  an  immovable  point, 


% 


22 


BATTLE    or    LAKR    ERII. 


in  the  nature  of  thinfi,  it  followi  timt  Mr.  Bur^ei  meanfl, 
in  this  diiigmm,  to  repreiont  the  Lawrence,  a  crippled  and 
unniiuiuj(«iihle  vtjusel,  aa  having  drifted  more  than  a  mile 
to  windward,  without  the  aid  of  a  current,  their  bein^  none 
on  Lake  Krie.  A  reference  to  the  text  will  ihow  that  thit 
tour  de  force  must  have  lieen  ttccornplinhed,  too,  in  titteen 
minuteH.  In  this  instance,  Mr.  Burges's  words  Mustain  hii 
diagram  !  By  referring  to  his  explanations,  it  will  Im)  seen 
he  gives  this  account  of  the  matter — "No.  3,  the  Lawrence, 
which  had  drifted  to  windward,  ofter  Ferry  left  hur."  If 
this  were  not  *»  Ihit  burglary,"  it  was  clearly  mutiny,  against 
the  laws  of  physics. 

Mr.  Burges  has  written  about  facts  which  he  has  derived 
from  the  information  of  partisans,  and  on  a  profesional  sub- 
ject of  which  he  is  profoundly  ignorant.  I  shall  take  my 
leave  of  him,  by  producing  a  single  instance  of  his  logic — 
not  to  say  moraUty — in  a  matter  where  clear  and  just  ideas 
might  have  been  expected  from  a  lawyer.  This  will  be 
done  with  less  hcbitation,  since  every  essential  point  con- 
nected with  the  few  questions  really  in  dispute  between 
Capts.  Perry  and  Elliott,  and  which  has  been  broached 
by  this  writer,  will  be  met  in  the  answer  to  Capt.  Mac- 
kenzie.    The  instance  of  logic   alluded  to,  is  as  follows. 

In  his  official  account  of  the  battle,  Capt.  Perry  makes 
use  of  this  language :  "  At  half  past  two,  the  wind 
springing  up,  Capt  Elliott  was  enabled  to  bring  his  vessel, 
the  Niagara,  gallantly  into  close  action."  The  Perry 
faction — for  the  combination  of  men,  who  have  u.  tt  d  to 
obscure,  if  not  to  falsify  the  truth,  in  this  matte,  Uderv  3 
the  epithet— The  Perry  faction  contend  that  Elliott  did  not 
bring  the  Niagara  into  close  action,  at  all ;  some  of  them 
go  so  far,  e^en,  as  to  maintain  she  was  out  of  reach  of 
shot,  until  P^Try  got  on  board  of  her.  This  theory  is 
maintained,  1  iv  'rmnv  others  they  advance,  at  the  expence 
of  a  great  de  »*  m  jc^.tradiction.     Of  course,  it  was  neces- 

..^..r    t^  ^ot    ri.'   t\f  tKia    atnrpmp.nf  of  Pf>rrV^S.    which  could 

hardly  be  explained  away  by  the  pretence  that  his  object 
was  to  shield  Capt.  Elliott,  as  is  set  up  as  an  apology  for 
his  general  eulogium  on  the  conduct  of  this  officer  in  the 
battle.     This  would  be  an  untruth,  with  circumstance,  and 


9 

lATTLC    or    LAKE    CKfE. 


ftir  ftronger  than  a  limple  tintrtifh,  which  In  all  thejr  wiih 
to  inifiutf)  to  Capt.  Perry,  ilore  i§  Mr.  Bu rge«'«  account 
of  th«  iiiAttor. 

••  On  tlie  13th  Sept."  he  lajrii  *•  he  (Perry)  sent  a  second 
desputch  to  tht;  aeorotary  of  the  Navy,  *to  give  him  tumie 
of  the  particulars  of  the  battle/  Here  he  saved  Elliott  by 
a  benevolent  ambi^itff.  He  »ayB^*ai  half  pa$t  two^  the 
wind  iprtiti(ini<  up,  Cupt  Elliott  was  inaiilid  to  bring  his 
ves  *1,  the  Niagara,  gallantly  into  close  action.  Ho  wan 
ENAULrt,  he  could  say  ;  he  could  not  siiy  he  did  bring  the 
Niagara  into  close  action."  Some  reasoning  foUowH  to 
■how  that  Mr.  Burjires  considers  this  a  point  in  his  case. 
The  italics  and  capitals  are  his  own. 

If  the  Historical  Sticiety  of  Rhode  Inland  learned  nothing 
else  from  the  lecture  of  Mr.  Uurges,  it  had  an  opportunity 
of  oscertaining  what  one  of  the  eminent  citizens  of  that 
State  is  iJjased  to  term  a  **  benevolent  ambiguifv."  In 
this  section  of  the  country,  we  have  a  good  many  of  these 
*'  benevolent  auibiguitieH"  practiced  by  a  certain  caste  of 
lawyers ;  more  esjHJcially  before  the  County  Courts  and 
Justices  of  the  Peace.  Among  gentlemen,  every  where, 
the  benevolence  would  meet  with  but  little  respect,  while 
the  **  ambiguity"  wotdd  excite  disgust.  As  for  Capt.  Per- 
ry, for  even  Capt.  Mackenzie  adopts  Mr.  Burges's  reas- 
oning on  this  point,  so  far  at  least  as  I  can  understand  him, 
I  tind  myself  placed  in  the  singular  position  of  being 
obliged  to  ♦♦  save  him  from  his  friends."  That  officer  had 
not  so  much  forgotten  what  was  due  to  his  h<morable  pro- 
fession, as  to  meditate  any  evasion  as  sneaking  as  that 
which  is  here  attributed  to  him.  This  is  fully  j»roved  by 
the  context  of  his  own  letter,  if  proof,  indeed,  be  necessary 
to  vindicate  Oliver  Perry  from  an  act  altogether  so  un- 
worthy of  his  reputation,  and  of  the  service  of  which  he 
was  a  distinguished  member. 

The  eulogiurns  Perry  bestows  on  Capt.  Elliot,  in  other 
parts  of  his  official  report  of  the  battle,  prove  that  he  in- 
tended no  equivocation  in  this  particular  sentence.  More 
than  enough  was  elsewhere  said  to  shield  that  officer,  if 
this  were  in  truth  the  motive  of  the  "  benevolent  ambiguity," 
without  resorting  to  so  miserable  a  subterfuge.  But,  Mr. 
Burges  does  not  quote  the  whole  sentence,  the  part  omit- 


u 


BATTLR    OF    LAKE    ERIE. 


m 


ted  conclusively  answering  his  interpretation.  Capt,  Per- 
ry says,  **  At  half  past  two,  the  wind  springing  up,  Capt. 
Elliott  was  enabled  to  bring  his  vesstl,  the  Niagara,  gal- 
lantly into  close  action  ;  /  immtdiatcly  went  on  board  of 
htr^  when  he  anticipated  my  wish  by  volunteering  to  bring 
the  schooners,  which  hud  been  kept  astern  by  the  lightness 
of  the  wind,  into  close  action.'*  Here  we  see  Capt.  Perry 
expressly  referring  to  this  change  of  position,  this  coming 
into  close  action,  where  Mr.  Burges  boasts  that  Perry  was 
himself,  as  giving  him  (Perry)  an  opportunity  of  making 
the  change  of  vessel  of  which  he  speaks.  The  use  of  the 
word  '*  immediately,"  too,  shows  this.  It  refers  to  time, 
of  course ;  and  to  what  time  can  Mr.  Burges  apply  it,  if  it 
be  not  immediately  after  Capt.  Elliott  had  got  *  into 
close  action*'  Docs  he  think  Perry  would  have  said  "  im- 
mediately after  Capt.  Elliott  was  enabled  to  get  i!;to  close 
action,  I  went  on  board  the  Niagara?"  This  would  have 
been  a  very  complicated  falsifying  of  the  truth.  Perry's 
language  had  no  such  object ;  it  ie  simple,  direct,  and  not 
to  be  misunderstood.  His  letter,  moreover,  furnishes  proof 
for  itself,  how  he  understood  this  word  "  enabled  "  In 
speaking  of  the  Ariel  and  Scorpion,  two  vessels,  that  even 
Mr.  Burges  admits  got  early  into  close  action,  Capt.  Perry 
says — 

"  The  Ariel,  Lt.  Packet,  and  Scorpion,  Sailing  Master 
Champlin,  were  enabled  to  get  early  into  the  action,  atid 
were  of  great  service.''''  Here  **  enabled"  is  unequivocally 
used  in  direct  connection  with  performance^  and  without 
any  *'  benevolent  ambiguity." 

1  have  not  taken  the  pains  to  refute  this  interpretation 
of  Messrs.  Burges  and  Mackenzie,  with  the  slightest 
idea  that  any  man  of  ordinary  honesty,  or  ordinary  intellect 
could  require  it,  but,  because  it  furnishes  a  fair  specimen 
of  the  means  that  have  been  employed  in  defending  the 
other  side  of  this  question,  and  may  give  the  reader  some 
notion  of  the  moral  calibre  of  the  men  with  whom  I  have 
had  to  contend. 

I  shall  here  take  leave  of  Mr.  Burges,  after  adverting  to 
one  other  point,  and  this  less  with  any  view  to  my  own 
justification,  than  to  the  justification  of  a  gentleman  who 
has  keenly  felt  his  imputations,  as  cruel  and  calumnious 


DATTLE    OP    LAKE    ERIE. 


35 


insinuationB  against  his  own  veracity.  Tliero  were  but 
three  medical  men  in  the  American  squadron  on  Lake 
Erie  :  viz.  Messrs.  Ilorsely  and  Barton,  the  surgeons  of 
the  Lawrence  and  Niagara,  and  Dr.  Usher  Parsons,  of 
Rhode  Island^  the  surgeon's  mate  of  the  latter  vessel.  All 
three  of  these  gentlemen  had  taken  the  fever,  but  Dr.  Par- 
sons had  recovered  when  the  buttle  was  fought.  Dr.  Barton, 
the  gentleman  to  whom  I  allude,  made  an  affidavit,  in  1821, 
on  the  subject  ot  the  points  in  dispute.  Ac  the  enemies 
of  Capt.  Elliott  then  contended,  and  have  ever  since  con- 
tended, that  the  Niagara  was  hardly  in  action  at  all,  until 
Perry  took  her  there,  and  that  she  had  but  one  or  two  men 
hurt,  until  after  Perry  got  on  board.  Dr.  Barton's  testi- 
mony bore  principally  on  these  two  points.  As  respects 
the  wounded  he  was  the  best  evidence  of  which  the  case 
Cidmitted,  a  wounded  man  going  to  the  surgeon,  as  a  mat- 
ter of  course.  In  order  to  get  rid  of  the  testimony  of  Dr. 
Barton,  then,  Mr.  Burges,  and  1  may  add  Capt.  Mackenzie 
and  most  who  have  written  on  that  side  of  the  controversy 
since  1821,  maintain  that  this  gentleman  was  in  his  berth, 
and  could  not  know  the  facts  concerning  which  he  testifies. 
Now  it  happens,  that  Dr.  Barton's  testimony  is  far  better, 
as  to  manner,  than  that  given  by  most  of  the  opposing 
witnesses.  He  is  evidently  a  man  wh*  states  with  proper 
caution,  and  one  who  wishes  to  sa^  no  more  than  the  oc- 
casion called  for.  The  appearance  of  Mr.  Burg^es's  book 
greatly  mortified  this  gentleman,  who  lives  in  Virginia  a 
life  so  retired,  that  in  his  letters  to  Com.  Elliott,  which  have 
been  transmitted  to  me,  he  appeals  to  the  testimony  of 
many  officers,  to  sustain  his  statements,  most  of  whom 
have  been  dead  from  fifteen  to  twenty  years.  These  letters, 
if  published,  would  remove  every  doubt  as  to  the  ability  of 
Dr.  Barton  to  prove  the  facts  to  which  he  swears,  but  they 
are  too  long,  nor  have  I  authority  to  lay  them  before  the 
world.  Of  the  testimony,  itself,  I  shall  speak  hereafter,  it 
being  my  intention  now  merely  to  explain  the  circum- 
stances under  which  Dr.  Barton  has  testified. 

Dr.  Barton  was  ill  previously  to  the  action.  When  it  was 

ascertained  that  a  battle  was  to  be  fought,  he  did  what  any 

man  would  have  done  under  the  circumstances,  who  could 

do  it ;  he  summoned  all  his  strength,  prepared  fpr  the  oc- 

3 


f 

I 


^6 


BATtLB   OP    LAKE    ERiE. 


casioii.  and  was  at  his  post,  from  early  in  the  inorninff. 
until  late  m  the  evening.     The  wounded  of  the  Niairara 
came  to  inm,  and  wi^re  attended  to  by  him.     At  lenirih 
nature  gave  way.   and  his  exertions  prod ucea  a  reaction 
which  laid  him  up.     In  consequence  of  his  exertions  on 
tlie  day  of  the  battle.  Dr.  Parsons  had  to  attend  fhe  wound- 
r^     «    Niagara,  after  the  battle;  and  in  consequence 
o!  Dr.  Parsons'  attending  J.e  wounded  after  the  battfe,  it 
has  b.en  asserted  that  Dr.  Barton  was  in  his  berth,  during 
the  battle,  and  could  not  know  the  facts  to  which  he  testifies. 
In  answer  to  all  this,  I  shall  say.  first— tliat  Dr.  Barton 
tes  ihes  to  htt  e  that  he  might  not  have  known  had  he  been 
m  Ills  berth,  the  ward-room  and  steerage  being  used  as  a 
cockpit;  second,  that  Dr.  Barton  unequivocally  denies  the 
statement  that  he  was  not  on  duty,  and  furnishes  evidence 
to  sustain  him.     Other  officers  of  the  Niagara  corroborate 
tins   statement.     Among  other  facts  to  which   Dr.  Barton 
testihos,  he   says   in  reference   to  the   allegation   that  the 
Niagara  was  not  within  reach  of  shot  before  Capt.  Perry 
reached  her,   "  one  man  was   mortally  wounded   on    the 
berth-deck  very  early  in  the  contest,  by  a  shot  which  pass- 
ed  through  both   sides  of  the  vessel ;  and  it   would  seem 
,\  ""i,,"^^'  s''e  was  not  entirely  out  of  reach  of  the  ene- 
my.        This  is  awkwajd  testimony,  since  it  disposes  of  the 
question  of  distance  ;  men  might  be  mistaken,  from  a  va- 
riety  of  causes  ;  but  a  cannon   ball  could  not  lie.     It  was 
necessary  to  get  rid  of  this  testimony,  and,  as  Dr.  Barton's 
character  is  too  good  to  impeach  him  directly,  he  is  stowed 
away  in  a  berth,   in  order  to  give   an  air   of  hearsay  or 
conjecture  to  the  circunfistances  he  relates.     Now  it  hap- 
pens  that  Dr.  Barton,  in  one  of  his  letters  written  as  re- 
cently as   since  the  appearance  of  Mr.  Burges's  lecture, 
incidentally  and  naturally  alludes  to  this  occurrence,  for 
he  does  not  appear  to  know  that  his  account  of  this   par- 
ticular incident  was  questioned,  except  by  placing  him  in 
his   berth  ;  rendering  his    testimony  still   more   probable. 
His  account  is  this.     A  wounded  man  had  been  lowered 
«owa  tiie  forward  hatch,  and  he  iiad  gone  forward  to  re- 
ceive him.  While  passing  along  the  berth-deck,  the  shot  in 
question   entered,  mortally  wounded  a  man  who  was  al- 
ready dying  in  his  hammock,  of  the  fever,  and  passed  out 


nA.TT(.E    OP    LAKE    ERIE. 


27 


at  the  opposite  side  of  the  brig.  This  was  Dr.  Barton's 
first  service,  and  he  mentions  all  this,  not  us  testimony,  not 
in  justification  of  what  he  hud  said  previously,  but  in  a 
para^rruph  in  which  he  describes  his  own  feelings  to  his  old 
commander,  in  a  very  natural  summary  of  the  impressions 
that  had  been  made  iix  himself,  on  an  occasion  entirely 
novel.  One  such  natural  and  incidental  narrative,  pro- 
ceeding from  a  man  of  character,  is  worth  a  dozen  affida- 
vits drawn  up  by  a  lawyer,  who  has  an  end  in  view,  and 
sworn  to  under  dictation.  It  is  proper  to  add,  however, 
that  all  which  Dr.  Barton  states  in  his  letter  of  1821,  is 
sworn  to. 

Here  I  leave  Mr.  Burges,  for  the  present.  I  say  for  the 
present,  as  many  of  his  statements  will  be  answered,  in 
answering  those  of  Capt.  Mackenzie.  I  must  correct  my- 
self— while  writing  this  paragraph  my  eye  has  fallen  on 
one  of  Mr.  Burges's  cool  contradictions  of  his  own  wit- 
nesses which  is  too  glaring  to  overlook.  At  pages  91  ,&  92, 
he  gives  the  finding  of  the  Court  of  Inquiry,  which  sat  on 
Capt.  Elliott,  in  1815.  In  it  are  these  words ;  **  The  Court 
of  Inquiry  convened  at  the  request  of  Capt.  Jesse  D.  Elli- 
ott, having  deliberately  examined  all  the  evidence  produced 
before  them,  for  the  purpose  of  investigating  his  conduct 
in  the  glorious  battle  of  Lake  Erie,  on  the  10th  Sept.  1S13, 
in  which  he  bore  so  conspicuous  a  part,  sincerely  regrets 
&c." — again — **  The  Court,  however,  feel  convinced  that 
the  attempts  to  wrest  from  Capt,  Elliott  the  laurels  he. 
gained  in  that  iplendid  victory,  aw^Xii  in  no  wise  to  lessen 
him  in  the  opinion  of  his  fellow  citizens,  &c." 

On  the  very  page  on  which  Mr.  Burges  publishes  this 
finding  of  ihe  Court,  he  says  for  himself — *♦  This  opinion 
merely  negatives  the  allegation  of  the  British  Court  Mar- 
tial, VIZ  : — That  Elliott  was  "  making  away  from  the  bat- 
tle." Thus,  according  to  Mr.  Burges,  when  a  Court 
speaks  of  the  "  conspicuous  part"  borne  by  an  officer  in  a 
battle,  and  "  of  the  laurels  he  had  gained,"  it  means  merely 
that  he  did  not  run  away !  There  is  little  of  "  benevolent 
ambiguity"  in  this. 

The  admission  of  Capt.  Mackenzie  that  he  is  the  author 
of  the  article  in  the  North  American  Review,  greatly  sim- 
plifies my  answer  to  that  journal.     As  his  authorities  are 


28 


BATTLE    OP   LAKE    ERIE. 


! 


iiiii 


I 


I     u 


very  much  the  same  for  this  article  and  his  Life  of  Perrr 
they  will  be   met  when  1  come  to  reply  to  that  hook.     iJ 
may  be  well    however,  to  point  out  in  passin^r,  the  manner 
in  which  public  opinion  is  manufactured  among  us.    Here 
are  the  Commercial  Advertiser,  the  North   American  Re- 
view, and  Capt.  Mackenzie,  of  the  U.  S.  ^Navy,  a  chival- 
rous  and  enlightened  gentleman,  forsooth,  all  agreeinij  to 
decry  the  Naval   History,   in  its  account  of  the  Battle  of 
Lake  Erie,  a  certain  sign  that  its  author  has  been  careless, 
or  corrupt !     When  we  get  behind  the  curtain  we  find  all 
three  of  these  articles  come  from  the  same  connection,  and 
two  from  the  same  man.     Corrupt !    what  motive  could  I 
have  for  not  joining  in  the  cry  against  Com.  Elliott,  be- 
yond a  wiih  to  tell  the  truth  1     Is  it  politics  ?     When  and 
where  have   I  ever  sought  political  favor  ?     It  has  been 
well  known  to  my  friends,  that  for  years  and  years,  I  have 
unitormly  declared  no  probable  inducementcould  tempt  me 
to  hold  office  under  the  people  or  government  of  this  coun- 
try.    I  have  never  asked  it,  and  no  man  has  a  riffht  tosav 
I  wish  It.     But  is  Com.  Elliott  such  a  favorite  that  serving 
him  in  this  matter  would   be  likely  to  serve  myself?     Is 
It  not  matter  of  notoriety  that  the  advantage  all  will  admit 
1  have  gained  in  this  controversy,  has  been  gained  right  in 
the  teeth  of  a  most  violent  popular  prejudice?     Com  El- 
liott  has  been  bitterly  and  blindly  assailed  by  one  party 
while  the  other  has  never  sustained  him.     The  naked  truth 
13,  that  corruption  stalks  so    boldly  through  the  land  that 
when  a  man  acts  under  the  influence  of  the  simple  right 
his  conduct  IS  not  appreciated,  and  that  portion  of  the 
community  which  creates  public  opinion— if  the  ephemeral 
notions  of  the  day  merit  so  respectable  an  epithet— imme- 
diately busy  themselves  in  hunting  up  for  him  the  most 
plausible  bit  of  baseness  they  can  imagine,  by  way  of  a 
motive.     The  truth  is  not  to  be  concealed— a  man  is  much 
safer  among  us,  by  the  frank  avowal  of  a  tolerably  corrupt 
incentive,  than   by  pretending  to  principle  ;  there  being  a 
prevalent  indisposition  to  believe  in  the  existence  of  the 


As  for  the  North  American,  I  shall  answer  directly  to 
only  one  ot  its  charges,  leaving  the  rest  for  that  which  is  to 
come  after.     Capt.  Mackenzie  accuses  me  of  having  sup- 


I 
I 


BATTLE   OP    LAKE    ERIE. 


30 


i 


pressed  the  fact  of  the  superiority  of  the  British  in  force, 
because   I  liave  omitted  to  say  that  they  had  63  guns,  in 
the  battle  of  Lake  Erie,  while  Perry  had  but  54!     Now 
does  Capt.  Mackenzie,  will  any  sailor  say  that  the  number 
of  the  guns  settles  the  question  of  the  superiority  of  force  ? 
In  the  first  place,  owing  to  the  manner  in  which  his  guns 
were  mounted,  Perry  fought  just  as  many  in  broadside  as 
his  enemy,  at  once  destroying  this  seeming  disparity.  Then 
the   weight  of  the  guns  and  the  size  of  the  vessels  were 
altogether  in  favor  of  the  Americans,    These  facts  are  be- 
yond controversy,  though  there  is  some  little  question  as  to 
a  part  of  the  English   metal.     I  have  never  entertained  a 
doubt  that  the  Americans  were  superior  to  their  enemy,  in 
force,  comparing  whole  numbers  with  whole  numbers,  on 
the  10th  Sept. ;  though  they  fought  under  disadvantages 
which  tended  materially  to  neutralize  this  disparity.     This 
much  is  substantially  admitted  in  the  History,  though  the 
precise  calibres  of  the  guns  is  not  given,  as  some  doubts 
were  thrown  over  the  point.     J  would  not  give  the  number 
of  the  English  guns,  when  I  could  not  give  their  cahbres. 
It  suited  Capt.  Mackenzie  to  parade  the  54  against  the  63, 
but  it  did  not  suit  me.     In  order  to  prove  that    my  for- 
bearance was   more  just  than  his  boasting  of   this  appar- 
ent disparity,  I  now  give  the  English  official  account  of  the 
metal  of  both  parties. 

English    Squadron. 

Detroit,  39  Guns,   2  long  24*8 ;  ]  long  18,  on  pivot ;  6  long  12*s  ; 

8  long  9'3;  I  24  Iba.  carronade;  1  18  lbs. 

carronade. 
1  long  12,  on    pivot ;  2  long  9's ;  14  24  lbs. 

carronades. 
1  long  9,  on  pivot;    2  long  G's;  10  12  lbs; 

carronades. 
4  long  6'i. ;  2  long  4'8 ;  2  long  2's;  2  12  lbs, 

carronades. 
1  long  12,  on  pivot ;  2  long  6's. 


Charlotte         17      ' 

Lady  Prevost,  13     " 

Hunter,  10 

Little  Belt,      3 
Chippeway,     I 


it 


1  long  9. 


Guns,    63 


Metal,  tota!--851.    Average  as  to  guns,  13  1-2 
lbs.  each  gun 


3* 


I ,  'llil 


J 


30 


Lawrence, 

Niagara, 

Caledonia, 

Ariel, 

Homers, 

Porcupine, 

Tigreas, 

Scorpion, 

Trippe, 


20 
20 

4 
2 
1 
1 
1 
1 


guns 


n 


<< 
ii 
<( 
<< 


BATTLE    OF    LAKE   ERIE. 

American  Squadron, 

2  long  12'8  ;  18  32  lbs.  cnrronades. 

2  long  V2'b',  is  32  lbs.  carronades. 

21orig5i4'B;  1   ;i2  lbs.  carronado. 

4  long  12'»,  on  pivots. 

1  long  24 :  1  32  lbs.  carronade. 

J  long  32,  pivot. 

1  long  32,  Iiivot. 

1  long  32,  1  24  lbs.  carronade,  on 

1  long  24,  pivot. 


pivots. 


Guns, 


54    Metal  total-1480-~Aver«ge  as  to  guns  27  1-2  lbs. 
each  gun;    or  about   double  that  of  the   English. 

Such  is  Capt.  Barclay's  account  of  the  force.  That  he 
has  not  diminished  his  own  is  probable,  as  he  has  certainly 
not  exaggerated  the  American.  The  Trippe  had  a  long 
33.  instead  of  the  24  he  has  given  her,  while  the  Scorpion 
18  believed  to  have  had  a  long  24,  and  a  32  lb.  carronade. 
Ihe  remainder  of  the  American  metal  is  thought  to  be 
correctly  given.  But,  allowing  some  small  inaccuracies  to 
exist,  who  will  pretend  that  the  63  English  guns,  ceteris 
paribus,  are  equal  to  the  54  American  ? 

I  do  not  think  all  this  difference  of  force  was  fairly  avail- 
able to  the  Americans,  under  the  circumstances  in  which 
the  battle  was  actually  fought,  but  I  can  entertain  no  doubt 
that  by  simply  parading  the  fact  before  the  reader,  that  the 
Ji-nghsh  had  nine  guns  more  than  the  Americans,  I  should 
not  have  given  him  an  accurate  idea  of  the  relative  physi- 
cal means  of  the  two  parties,  considered  as  a  whole.   Much 
ot  my  minute  information  comes  from  the  late  Capt.  Holdup 
Stevens,  who  wab  a  witness  against  Capt.  Elliott  in  the  con- 
troversy, and  this  gentleman  freely  admitted  to  me  the  su- 
periority  of  our  squadron.     Other  officers  employed  on  the 
10th  of  Sept.  have  done  the  same.     I  know  that  Perry 
maintained  that  he  was  inferior,  but  I  think  he  was  wrong 
In  a  biographical  sketch  of  that  officer,  written  by  myself 
the  point  is  discussed  at  a  little  length,  and  I  refer  the  read- 
er to  It  for  my  side  of  the  question.     I  do  not  believe  there 
IS  a  respectable  man  living,  who  has  ever   seen  the    two 
.-.j«v.-.,.,^na,  TTw.,-  TTwuiu  uuiiuufcueiy  swear,  in  a  court  of  jus- 
tice, that  the  English  were  superior  to  the  Americans  in 
physical  means,  without  reference  to  the  manner  in  which 
these  means  happened  to  be  employed,  on  the  10th  Sept. 


BATTLE    OP    LAKE    ERIE. 


81 


9. 


pivoti. 

27  1-2  Ib«. 
lie   English. 

That  he 
8  certainly 
ad  a  long 
;  Scorpion 
jarronade. 
light  to  be 
uracies  to 
s,  cfEteris 

lirly  avail- 
in  which 
i  no  doubt 
r,  that  the 
,  I  should 
ive  physi- 
le.   Much 
t.  Holdup 
1  the  con- 
le  the  su- 
ed on  the 
at  Perry 
IS  wrong. 
y  myself, 
the  read- 
eve  there 
the    two 
rt  of  jus- 
ricans  m 
in  which 
Ith  Sept. 


An  officer  of  great  experience,  one  friendly  to  Perry,  who 
had  seen  much  service  in  battle,  vi.Mited  the  stjuadrons  on 
Lake  Erie  and  Lake  Cham  plain,  before  they  were  separat- 
cd  ;  and  ho  told  me  that  he  thought  the  liawrence  and  Ni- 
agara, could  they  have  got  within  effective  distance  imme- 
diately, sufficient  to  have  defeated  all  of  Barclay's  force 
united,  especially  with  a  stiff  breeze ;  and  on  the  other 
hand,  that  he  thought  the  Confiance  nearly,  if  not  quite 
equal,  to  all  McDonough's.  I  know  this  is  not  the  doc- 
trine to  g.iin  favor;  but  my  aim  is  truth,  and  not  personal 
popularity.     When  ver  I  err,  it  is  done  ignorantly. 

I  come  now  to  the  criticism  of  Mr.  William  A.  Duer,  as 
It  was  published  in  the  Commercial  Advertiser.  This  gen- 
tleman is  an  uncle,  by  marriage,  of  Capt.  Mackenzie,  and 
his  beautiful  article  may  be  taken  as  a  part  of  the  family 
picture.  He  probably  did  not  anticipate,  when  he  wrote  it, 
all  the  consequences  lo  himself  that  might  flow  from  his 
occupation. 

As  this  article  was  considered  libellous,  I  sued  the  editor 
of  the  journal  for  the  wrong  he  had  done  me.  The  case 
was  referred  to  arbitrators,  and  the  result  was  a  dscision 
in  my  favor ;  a  moral,  as  well  as  a  legal  decision.  'J'his 
removes  the  necessity  for  dwelling  on  much  that  it  might, 
otherwise,  have  been  well  to  answer.  As  the  argument 
and  evidence  are  the  same,  with  all  the  controversialists  on 
that  side,  I  shall  defer  my  answers,  to  the  reply  to  Capf 
Mackenzie  in  this  instance  also ;  pointing  out,  now,  a  suf- 
ficient number  of  instances  to  put  this  pretended  review 
before  the  world  in  its  true  colois. 

I  shall  show  that  this  article  was  written— Ist,  unfairly, 
as  to  its  pretension  and  performance  ;  2d,  that  it  is  written 
in  ignorance  ;  3d,  that  it  is  not  sufficiently  tenacious  of  the 
truth  ;  4th,  that  it  lays  down  positions,  which  its  own  wit- 
nesses contradict ;  5th  that  it  was  written  with  a  direct  in- 
tention to  deceive,  or  with  a  carelessness  of  facts  that  is 
but  little  less  culpable,  when  it  is  remembered  that  char- 
acter was  connected  with  its  statements.  If  I  fail  to  es- 
tablish every  one  of  these  positions,  let  the  consequences 
be  visited  on  myself:  If  I  succeed  in  my  undertaking,  let 
the  public  do  justice  in  the  premises.  I  might  here  quote 
the  decision  of  the  arbitrators  on  the  moral  issue  that  was 


II 

:  II 


!     fl 


33 


IIATTLE    OP    LAKE    ERIS. 


laid  before  them,  but  I  m  ill  rest  my  caae  on  a  few  proofs 
and  arguments,  that  1  prefer  to  »irer  to  the  world,  before 
any  opinions,  coming  from  what  source  the  latter  may. 

The  first  sentence  contaiuH  a  falsehood  in  fact,  as  well 
as  a  false  pretension,  as  to  all  the  known  objects  of  a  re- 
viewer.    It  is  in  these  words,  viz  : 

•*  Cooper's  Naval  History. — Although  the  same  courte- 
sy has  not  been  extended  to  us  in  regard  to  this  book,  by 
its  publishers,  which  we  uniformly  experienced  on  similar 
occasions,   before  we   committed  any  criticism  upon  Mr. 
Cooper  or  his  works — and  which  we  have  since  continued 
to  experience  with  respect  to  the  works  published  by  them 
of  other  authors — yet  we  felt  so  much  interest  in  the  sub- 
ject as  to  induce  us,  notwithstanding  this  neglect — which, 
as  we  do  not  impute  it  to  the  worthy  booksellers,  is  upon 
the  whole  rather  Mattering — to  obtain  this  last  work  of  Mr. 
Cooper's  in  spite  of  his  prohibition,  and  to  give  it  early, 
delil>erate  and  candid  perusal." 

I  have  extracted  this  precious  opening,  simply  as  a  spe- 
cimen of  editorial  impudence,  and  recklessness  of  asser- 
tion.    I  say  editorial,  because  Mr.  Stone  has  admitted  that 
he  wrote  it  himself;  prefixing  it  to  Mr.  Duer's  pretended 
criticism.     The  reader  is  asked  to  examine  it.  "Commit- 
ting criticism"  upon  Mr.  Cooper  and  his  works,  in  the  first 
place,  have  induced  his  publishers,  to  deny  Mr.  Stone  the 
courtesy  of  offering  new  copies  of  his  different  works.  Mr. 
Stone  has  committed  libels  on  Mr.   Cooper,  and  he  has 
smarted  for  it,  and  is  very  likely  to  smart  for  it  again,  if  that 
is  what  he  calls  criticism.     Notwithstanding  this  neglect — 
the  neglect  of  oftering  the  editor  of  a  daily  newspaper  a 
book  that  sold  for  $4,50! — Mr.  Stone  nobly  resolved  to 
obtain  a  copy — whether  bought  or  begged  he  does  not  say 
—-and  to  give  it  early,  deliberate  and  candid  perusal.     All 
this  he  manfully  resolved  on  performing,  in  spite  of  Mr. 
Cooper's  prohibition  to  his  publishers,  about  giving  him  a 
set  gratuitously      This  is  one  of  the  party,  too,  who  has 
talked  of  levying  black  mail  from  the  press,  because  1  have 
oareii  to  eniorce  the  laws  of  the  land  against  the  tyranni- 
cal course  of  a  portion  of  his  corps.   Comment  is  unneces- 
sary ;  the  facts  speaking  for  themselves.     The  whole  pic- 
ture is  complete,  when  1  add  that  Messrs.  Lea  &  Blanch- 


BATTLE    0¥    LAKE    EBIE* 


33 


nrd  wrote  to  Mr.  Stone  to  any  tlint  they  never  received  anj 
such  prohibition  from  me,  and  that  Mr.  Stone  subsequent- 
ly exphiined  away  his  allegation,  by  Hpeaking  of  it  as  only 
a  thing  he  had  suggented  as  *'  pr<»bable." 

The  profession  of  *♦  early,  deliberate  and  candid   peru- 
sar  will  be  made  to  appear  in  its  true  colors  as  I  proceed. 
••  We  had  hoped  that  on  this  occasion,"  continues  my  crit- 
ic, **  Mr.  Cooper — to  use  a  sea  phrase,  as   he  does,  in   a 
sense  that  a  seaman  never  used  it  in — would  *  go  aloft'  in- 
stead of  remaining  in  the  cockpit."     I  confess  I  was  a  lit- 
tle surprised  at  this,  as  it  is  asserting  I  am  so  ignorant  as 
not  to  understand  the  use  of  the  commonest  sea  terms.  As 
Mr.  Stone,  on  the  face  of  the  article,  wrote  this  paragraph 
also,  and  he  is  no  seaman,  I  presume  he  has  detected  my 
ignorance  through  the  seamen  he  has  consulted  on  this  oc- 
casion.    I  can  conjecture,  but  do  not  pretend  to  know  who 
these  are,  but  there  is  little  doubt,  if  their  criticism  appliei 
to  the  expression  I  understand  it  to  mean,  that  they   are 
just  fit,  as  sailors,  and  as  men  familiar  with  the  language  of 
the  finest  sea  in  the  world,  to  furnish  facts  to  a  reviewer  of 
the  Stone  calibre.     In  the  Naval  History,  the  terms  •'  go 
aloft,"  "  went  aloft,"  "  gone  aloft"  &a,  were  applied  to 
ships  that  had  passed  up  the  Mediterranean.     This  is 
using  a  term,  as  no  sailor  ever  before  used  it  in  !     Now,  I 
unhesitatingly  say  that  this  is  the  common  expression  at  the 
Rock,  and  that  I  had  heard  it  probably  a  thousand  times, 
before  Mr  Stone  ever  saw  even  the  Atlantic. 

This  article  is  written  unfairly  as  to  pretension  and  per- 
formance. The  caption  is  •♦  Cooper's  Naval  History;"  and 
"•this  last  work  of  Mr.  Cooper"  is  to  receive  an  "  early, 
deliberate  and  a  candid  perusal."  After  all  this  profession, 
what  IS  this  pretended  review  ?  Not  a  word  is  said  of  any 
eveiU,  fact,  or  narrative,  with  a  solitary  exception,  beyond 
the  Battle  of  Lake  Erie.  Like  Jack's  letter  to  his  mother, 
the  result  of  this  '  deliberate  and  candid  perusal'  is  an  arti- 
cle  that  IS  all  »  pig-tail"— all,  the  Battle  of  Lake  Erie.  It 
came,  like  the  Bino-mnhv  nf  Pi^r«r««^^,«  r> r .1 

same  clique,  and  cannot  travel  out  of  the  family !  Oliver 
I'erry  was  its  burthen,  and  such  men  as  M'Donough,  De- 
catur, Paul  Jones  and  fifty  others,  were  as  if  they  had  never 
lived.     Instead  of  assuming  "  Cooper's  Naval  History"  for 


S4 


BATTLE    OV    LAICE    tSLlM, 


'M 


hii  caption,  the  writer  of  this  article,  in  order  to  brinjBf  bti 
profeflsion  niid  prnctice  in  hiiriiioiiy,  itliould  have  taken 
**  Uattic  of  Luk«  t>iUf**  or  turnti  Ptinilur  iicadinjK  fur  iiia  ti- 
tle. In  a  word,  it  it)  a  liigti  iM)unding  prudHHion  of  carulor 
and  fair  critical  decitiion,  justified  by  an  ex-parte  diMcussion 
of  one  single  efent,  wliicli  discutmion  ^^^  treated  as  if  the 
writer  were  a  special  pleader  instead  of  a  judge. 

Again — who  ever  heard  an  honest  summing  up  of  any 
question,  in  which  the  testimony  of  one  side  is  substan- 
tially  kept  out  of  view.  Such  has  been  the  case,  however, 
in  Mr.  William  A.  Duer*s  upright  criticism.  While  he 
parades  garbled  statements  of  the  evidence  against  CapL 
Elliott  before  the  world,  he  entirely  keeps  the  testimony  in 
favor  of  that  oflficer,  oui  of  view.  Now  there  are  not  only 
more  witnesses  who  testify  in  behalf  of  Capt.  Elliott,  than 
there  are  of  those  who  testify  against  him,  but  there  are 
better  witnesses,  and  here  is  every  wcrd  Mr.  Duer  lias  seen 
fit  to  say  on  the  subject.  After  publishing  certain  affidavits 
that  the  friends  of  Com.  Perry  had  previously  given  to  the 
world,  he  adds: — 

"In  regard  to  the  evidence  adduced  by  Capt.  Elliott 
which  had  been  sufficiently  neutralized  or  invalidated,  it 
was  stated  that  Lieutenants  Smith  and  Edwards,  and  Pur- 
ser Magrath,  were  deceased — that  Lieutenant  Conklin  and 
Mr.  S.  Wardwell  Adams  were  no  longer  in  the  navy,  and 
that  there  was  no  officer  in  the  Am(;rican  fleet  bearing  the 
name  of  W.  NichoUs,  one  of  the  witnesses  of  Captain  El- 
liott." 

Here  is  every  syllable  Mr.  Duer  says  of  the  rebutting  tes- 
timony, unless  where  he  uses  these  words,  in  stating  his 
case  in  the  preliminary  explanations :  "  Capt.  Elliott,  how- 
ever, asserted  in  a  newspaper,  that  he  had  in  his  possession 
evidence  enough  to  destroy  the  object  of  this  attack  (an  at- 
tack on  Capt.  Elliott  is  meant,)  and  that  he  had  prepared 
the  materials  to  justify  the  rank  which  had  been  conferred 
on  him,  which  he  only  held  from  publication,  from  motives 
of  forbearance.  Upon  thjs,  the  brother  of  the  commodore, 
the  present  Capt.  M.  C.  Perry,  publicly  calieuou  Ca pi.  El- 
liott to  exhibit  the  documents  on  which  he  relied  for  his  jus- 
tification against  the  charges  of  Com.  Perry ;  which  was 
consequently  done,  and  these  "evidences"  were  promptly 


BATTI.I    or    LAKE    miC. 


)  bring  hit 
lave  ttiketi 
^  for  luH  ti- 
I  of  curuJor 
I  discussion 
tl  at  if  the 

up  of  any 

is  RubMtan- 
3,  however. 
While  he 
ainst  Capt. 
8timon}r  in 
re  not  only 
lUiott,  than 
It  there  are 
er  lias  seen 
in  affidavits 
iven  to  the 

apt.  Elliott 
alidated,  it 
J,  and  Pur- 
!onklin  and 


navy, 


and 


bearing  the 
!)aptain  £1- 

• 

butting  test- 
stating  his 
illiott,  how- 
i  possession 
tack  (an  at- 
d  prepared 
1  conferred 
3m  motives 
ommodore, 
a  Capl.  £1- 
forhis  jus- 
which  was 
e  promptly 


met  and  rebutted  by  the  additional  affidavit! /rom  which  %oe 
ei  tract  the  material  fact m.^* 

Any  tiling  can  be  proved  by  such  means  :  It  is  true  you 
have  testimony,  but  it  is  completelv  put  to  shame  by  ours, 
and  here  is  the  latter  to  prove  it !  liad  I  said  any  thing 
about  Capt.  Elliott's  testimony — had  [  said  any  thing  about 
the  points  in  controversy,  there  might  have  been  some  ex- 
cuse  for  this  course,  did  the  article  profess  to  be  simply  an 
answer  to  my  account  of  the  battle ;  but  it  professes  to  bo 
a  review  of  the  book^  in  the  tirst  place,  and  my  offence, 
when  the  other  side  was  cornered,  and  compelled  to  enter 
on  a  justification,  was  reduced  to  one  altogether  of  omis- 
sion. Silence  was  my  error.  I  ought,  in  their  view  of 
the  matter,  to  have  criminated  Capt.  Elliott,  when  1  had 
nmre  than  serious  doubts  ol  his  guilt,  and  when  the  facts 
were  clearly  in  an  unfit  state  to  be  received  at  all  into  the 
pages  of  history. 

Here,  then,  we  find  two  reviewers,  Mensrs.  Mackenzie 
ond  Diier,  furnishing  the  evidence  of  one  side  of  a  case 
before  them,  and  suppressinir  that  of  the  other.  Let  us  see 
on  what  ground  the  latter  justifies  his  proceeding.  It  is 
true,  Mr.  Duer  does  not  say  of  himself,  that  this  person  is 
dead,  and  no  longer  in  the  navy,  as  a  reason  for  not  giving 
his  testimony ;  but  he  presents  the  facts  so  as  to  offer 
them  as  a  general  excuse  for  not  showing  what  theso  gen- 
tlemen had  said.  The  idea  is  very  extraordinary — quite 
as  remarkable  in  its  way,  as  the  **  enabled'*  of  Mr.  Bur- 
ges — and,  properly  improved,  might  allow  a  critic  to  dem- 
onstrate that  even  Washington  was  a  desperate  adventurer 
and  a  man  without  morals.  Of  being  all  this,  he  was 
charged  in  some  of  the  earlier  English  publications,  and 
let  the  man  who  threw  these  vile  aspersions  on  the  Fath- 
er of  his  country,  outlive  all  who  could  deny  them,  and  his 
single  testimony  would  establish  the  fact.  The  notion  that 
a  man  is  no  longer  an  available  witness  in  this  case,  be- 
cause he  has  left  the  navy,  need  only  to  be  mentioned^  to 
be  laughed  at. 


n 


BATT1.B    or    LAKC    gRlE. 


'1 ; 


But,  how  stands  the  fact  ?  The  following  witncMcs  tci- 
tify  in  favor  of  Cupt.  EUiott,  viz  :— 

Lieutenant  Smith, 
**  Fidwnrdi, 

••  W«hiler, 

••  Conkhn, 

Purser  Magruth, 
Surgeon  Barton, 
Matter's  Mate  Tatern, 
Midshipninn  Cuiiiminirfi, 
J  "  Montgomery, 

••  AdaniM, 

••  Nichols, 

••  Page, 

Boatswain  Berry, 
Captain  in  the  army  Brevoort. 

Here  then  are  fourteen  witnesses,  wi»o  rtpeak  more  or 
less  decidedly  in  fuvor  of  Capt.  Elliott ;  most  of  them  in 
the  strongest  terms  of  approbation.  Of  these  fourU'en, 
Mr.  Duer  mentions  only  six,  nt  all ;  lesa  than  half,  and 
two  of  these  six,  he  excludes  on  the  ground  that  they  were 
no  longer  in  the  navy.  One,  he  says,  or  makes  Iuh  side 
say,  the  eflect  being  the  same,  was  a  man  of  straw.  Well, 
admit  this  shallow  reasoning  to  be  sound,  why  has  he  not 
given  the  testimony  of  the  remaining  eight  ]  Among  these 
eight  alone,  it  is  easy  to  find  evidence,  and  the  bent  the 
case  allows,  too,  to  refute  some  of  the  strongest  facts  on 
which  the  enemies  of  Capt  l^lliott  rely.  Doctor  Barton, 
as  I  have  shown,  is  an  all  important  witness ;  as  are  Lt 
Webster,  and  Capt.  Brevoort. 

But  is  this  excuse  sincere]  In  the  preceding  sentence 
to  that  which  I  have  qu^^f.d  from  Mr.  Duer,  that  gentle- 
man says,  "  There  were  many  other  documents  in  cor- 
roboration of  the  preceding  (the  evidence  against  Capt. 
Elliott,  as  given  by  Mr.  Duer)  within  the  control  of  the 
family  of  Com.  Perry,  but  they  chose  to  publish  only  the 
evidence  of  those  officers  who  were  living,  and  in  the 
United  States  at  the  time,  (the  time  of  the  controversy  of 
1821,)  and  in  adherence  to  this  determination,  the  evidence 
of  Lts.  Packett  and  Yarnell,  who  were  both  dead,  was 
withheld." 


tueascs  tot' 


»ATTLB  Of   LAKB   BRU.  §7 

Here  the  witnoMci  are  fiut  into  a  new  category  ;  ttioi« 
who  were  out  of  the  Unitml  State*,  at  the  time,  were  to 
be  exchKhul  !  Well,  neither  Dr.  Hurion,  Capt  iJrevoort. 
nor   Mr.  Cunimini^H,    nor  geveral  oihem  were  out  of  the 

(Jnited    Htaten,  um    In  seen  by   their  |Hihii(4hecl  ntrulaviti 

Me.HHrH   Hrevoort,  Nieholl.,  Pa,;,.,  Montgomery, UurKm  and 
llrrry,  were  all  at  home,  in  Ihtil,  and  all  alive. 

What  other  evidence  haH  the  IVrry  family , that  of  Lt.  Pack. 
ctt  excepted,  which  hm  not  been  puhliithed  t  On  thin  head, 
I  can  nay  that  all  the  tentimony,  an  f  underitood  the  mat- 
tcr,  was  8ent  to  me,  while  the  hiniory  waH  in  progrcin,  and 
I  found  nothing  in  the  portion.s  that  ha<i  not  hern  puhliHh- 
t'd,  to  nirtuence  an  impartial  num,  «?/<!>  / //iV/ /iwr/  ntronf^ 
proof  to  show  that  the  ttatements  of  MtHsrs.  Due r  and 
Mackenzie  are  not  acnirate. 

The  reader  will  iee  the  manner  in  which  Mr.  Fackett's 
name  has  been  intnulnced.  At  tiu"  proper  moment,  I  will 
tpiote  Irom  this  gentleman's  testinjony  to  show  that  it  really 
contradicts  the  most  serious  of  the  charges  airainst  Cam. 
FJIiott.  '^  * 

Thvi'i'.  was  no  such  man  in  the  fleet  as  "  W.  Nicholls 
one  ot  the  witnesses  of  Capt.  Klliott.'*  Now  it  was  noto- 
nous  th^re  was  an  officer  of  the  nane  of  Nichc.llH  in  the 

iV*'I^  !lr"*V^''  mistake  was  simply  clerical.  The  name 
IS  D.  (  .  Nicholls,  and  it  was  shown  to  the  arbitrators 
that  the  two  initial  letters  were  written  in  a  manner 
that  iijiglit  well  mislead  a  iirinter,  or  a  copyist.  The  man 
was  there,  he  testified  as  stated  beyond  a  doubt,  and  dis- 
tinctly refuted  one  of  the  charges  against  Capt.  Elliott— 
a  charge,  too,  that  no  one  seems  disjiosed  to  father,  as  it  is 
only  given  on  rumor.  To  make  a  point  of  a  mistake  like 
this,  argues  in  itself,  a  feeble  case. 

I  have  said  that  then-  is  one  exception  to  the  devotedness 
of  Mr.  Duer  to  the  Battle  of  Lake  Krie.  He  does  step 
aside,  in  a  note,  to  say  the  following,  viz  :_-  Alluding  to 
the  carrying  ot  the  Detroit  and  Caledonia  the  year  before, 
by  bonr  Img  from  the  shore— which  was  a  militnrv  .,.tJ. 
prize,  projected  and  conducted  by  Capt.  Towson;  of  the 
artillery— but  as  Lt.  Elliott  commanded  one  of  the  boats 
daims""'  a'^'  ^»»^'^;.r^"-and  Mr.  Cooper  ratifies  his' 
Claims.       A  more  deliberate  falsification  of  hiitory,  or  a 


1  f'i 


38 


BATTLE   OF    LAKE   ERIE. 


h  Ji 


more  reckless  substitution  of  irresponsible  rumors  for  fact, 
cannot  be  found,  than  is  contained  in  this  paragraph.  It  is 
out  of  my  power  to  say  wliether  Mr.  Duer  did,  or  did  not, 
examine  the  testimony  that  had  been  laid  )efore  the  world, 
in  connection  with  this  affair;  but  I  openly  challenge  him 
to  produce  a  single  published  statement  to  justify  his  ac- 
count. In  reply  to  the  most  unanswerable  proofs  that 
Capt.  Elliott  both  planned  and  conducted  this  expedition, 
including  an  admission  of  General  Towson  himself,  who 
only  claims  to  have  done  that  which  Mr.  Duer  ascribes  to 
Capt.  Elliott,  or  command  one  of  the  boats,  Mr.  Stone 
said  that  his  correspondent  (Mr.  Duer)  had  doubtless  been 
misled  by  statements  in  various  newsjlapers.  1  then  call- 
ed on  Mr.  Stone,  three  several  times,  to  name  one  of  these 
various  newspapers,  which  misled  Mr.  Duer.  I  cannot 
discover  that  the  paper  has  ever  been  produced,  and  I  now 
publicly  repeat  the  call.  Produce  a  single  newspaper,  Mr. 
W.  A,  Duer,  or  Mr.  W.  L.  Stone,  if  you  can,  the  New 
York  Commercial  Advertiser  excepted,  and  those  that  have 
copied  this  vile  calumny,  and  I  will  give  you,  one  or  both, 
credit  for  a  sincerity  that  I  now  find  it  impossible  to  con- 
cede. A  dispute  certainly  existed  between  Messrs.  El- 
liott and  Towson,  in  connection  with  this  enterprize ; 
but  it  arose  solely  from  the  question  whether  Gen.  Towsou 
did  or  did  not  act  as  a  captain  of  artillery  in  the  affair,  or 
as  a  volunteer;  not  from  any  doubt  as  to  the  individual 
v'ho  planned  and  conducted  the  attack.  In  this  contro- 
versy, Gen.  Towson  distinctly  attributes  the  credit  of  having 
planned  and  commanded  the  expedition  to  Lt.  Elliott,  while 
lie  claims  for  himself  that  of  having  taken  one  of  the  ves- 
sels. As  Mr.  Stone  has  publicly  confessed  that  his  corres- 
pondent had  been  misled  in  this  note,  it  is  unnecessary 
to  say  more  than  to  repeat  the  call  for  the  proof  that  even 
this  is  true.  For  myself,  1  believe  Mr.  Duer  stands  alone 
in  saying  that  Capt.  Elliott  did  not,  and  that  Gen.  Towson 
did  plan  and  conduct  this  enterprise.  If  he  has  any  au- 
thority, however,  he  c«w,  and  probably  tvill  show  it. 

2d. — The  article  is  written  in  ignorance.  By  this  is 
meant,  that  Mr.  Duer  has  not  sufficient  knowledge  of 
ships  and  sea  terms,  and  of  the  facts  in  the  case,  to  write 
a  respectable  review,  even  if  lie  possessed  the  disposition. 


m 


BATTLE    OP    LAKE    ERIEi 


3J> 


One  instance  will  be  sufficient  to  show  tliis  truth.     The 
battle  was  fought  with  the  wind  at  South  East,  the  Enghsh 
hue  lying-to   heading  up  about  S.  S.  West,  or  S.  W.  and 
t)y  feouth.     The  Americans  were  edging  down  with  tho 
wind  abeam  ;  or  steering  South  West;  a  httle  off,  perhaps. 
Now,  in  this  state  of  facts,  Mr.   Duer  asks  this  question, 
with  an  air  of  knowledge  and  pretension,  as  if  ho  were  a 
yeiy   Doctor  I  anstus,  at    the   points   of  the   compass.— 
V>  hen    at  this  moment  the  Niagara  passed  to  the  loesf- 
toard,  a  short  distance  to  windward  of  the   Lawrence  ' 
iTiight  not  the  former  have  sooner  reached  "  the   head  of 
the  enemy»s  hne,"  by  passing  to  eastward,  as  did  the  Cale- 
donia, which,   he  tells  us,  -  followed"  the  Niagara  to  lee- 
ward        After   this  exhibition  of  puerility  and  ignorance, 
lir.  JJuer  indulges  m  some  plesantry,  evidently  much  to  his 
own  satisfaction.     "  In  order,  it  would  seem,  to  gain  the 
same  point,  viz.  "the  head  of  the  enemy's  line,"  the  Niagara 
kept  to  windward  of  the  Lawrence,  steering  west erh/  "  he 
goei  on  to  add,  "  and  the  Caledonia  "  followed"  by  keep 
mg  to  leeward,  and  steering  toMcrhj^  As  Dr.  Duer--I  bL 
pardon  for  ever  having  called  so  learned  a  person  a  simple 
Mr.— uses  the  italics,  himself,  let  him  have  all  the  credit  of 
tnem. 

To  answer  this  logic,  and  mathematics  so  profound  it 
will  be  necessary  to  quote  what  the  history  dots  say.  The 
three  vessels,  the  Lawrence.  Niagara  and  Caledonia,  are 
m  a  iine  ahead,  steering  south  west,  or  south  west  and  by 
west  and  the  Niagara  wishes  to  pass  the  leading  vessel.— 

At  this  rnoment,"  says  the  history,  -  the  Niagara  passed 
to  the  westward,  a  short  distance  to  windward  of  the  Law- 
rence steering  for  the  head  of  the  enemy's  line,  and  the 
Caledonia  folbwed  to  leeward."  That  is  to  say,  both  the 
Niagara  and  Caledonia  went  to  the  westward,  or  towards 

K  .  «  w'**^  enemy'g  line,  which  enemy  was  heading  up 
about  S.  W.  and  by  South,  one  going  to  windward  of  the 
Lawrence,  and  the  other  following  her,  but  going  to  leeward 

♦L«yn"  '  ''^"""'  ,.  ."'  """^  Placement  Dr.  Uuer  makes 
the  following  prodigies.  He  makes  the  Caledonia  go  to 
the  eastward,  and  yet  to  leeward,  with  the  wind  at  South 
t^ast;  and  he  makes  herjgo  towards  the  head  of  the  enemy's 
line,  which  was  to  the  westward  of  her,  and  yet  go  presisely 


i  ■  • 


BATTLE    OF   LAKE    ERIE. 


40 

the  other  way  ;  or  to  the  eastward!  The  history  no  where 
says  the  CaJedonia  headed  easterly  a  single  point  that  day 
or  at  least,  during  the  battle;  nor  eould  she  liave  done  so! 
Without  steering  directly  from  her  enemies,  or  running 
away.  Now,  as  Dr.  Duer  justly  applauds  her  gallant  com'^ 
mander,  and  does  attribute  this  exploit  to  him,  it  must  be 
on  his  own  authority  ;  and  the  whole  shows  that  his  head 
was  hke  "a  no-man's  land"  on  the  subject  of  the  mana)u- 
vres  of  this  battle.  In  point  of  fact,  he  knew  nothing 
about  them.  It  is  charity  to  infer  ignorance,  as  the  alter- 
native is  a  wilful  perversion  of  facts. 

3d — The  article  is  not  sufficiently  tenacious  of  the  truth. 
As  this  is  a  grave  charge,  it  shall  be  distinctly  shown.     I 
have  given  the  history  of  the  different  controversies.     In 
speaking  of  that  which  commenced  with  a  pamphlet  a«rainst 
Capt.  Elhott,  in  1821,  Dr.  Duer  uses  this  language",  viz  • 
''  When  the  late  Commodore  Perry"  as  his  equally  gallant 
and  lamented  friend  the  editor  informs  us,  "  was  sbout  to 
sail  on  the   cruise  which  terminated  his  valuable  life    he 
requested    Com.  Decatur  to  take  charge  of  the  followinff 
documents,  &c."     All  this  is    Dr.  Duer's,  though  part  is 
quoted  from  the  preface  of  the  pamphlet.     The  effect  is  to 
lead  the  reader  to  believe  that  Com.  Decatur,  the  gallant 
and  lamented  friend  of  Perry,  edited  the  pamphlet,  and  no 
doubt  such  was  the  intention.     As  Decatur  was  killed  in 
March  1820,  it  will  be  difficult  to  show  he  edited  a  pamph- 
let in  1821.     In  point  of  fact,  be  had  nothing  to  do  with 
tl>e  publication. 

Again,  Dr.  Duer  foully  misquotes  me.  He  gives  the 
following  note  from  the  history,  in  a  way  to  leave  nothing 
but  the  part  I  have  put  in  italics.  ''Popular  opinion,  which 
IS  too  apt  to  confound  distinctions  in  such  matters,  usually 
attaches  the  idea  of  more  gallantry  to  the  mere  act  of 
jmssing  in  a  boat  from  one  vessel  to  another,  during  the 
action,  than  in  fighting  on  a  .  ssel's  deck.  This  icas  the 
least  of  Perry's  merits.  Capt.  Elliott  was  much  longer  in 
the  same  boat,  and  passed  nearly  through  the  whole  line 
.«.c^D,  aim  iTii.  Tta  vji-aih  nad  lull  the  i\iagara,  for  one  of 
the  other  vessels,  in  quest  of  shot,  before  Capt.  Perry  quit- 
ted the  Lawrence.  A  boat,  also,  passed  twice,  if  not  three 
times,  from  the  Caledonia  to  the  Trippe,  in  the  height  of 


fiATTLE    OP    LAKE    ERIE. 


41 


the  mgagtmm,  and    others,  quite  likely,  were  sent  from 
vessel  to  vessel.      Capt.  Perry's  merit  was  an  indomitable 
resolution  not  to  be  conquered,  and  the  manner  in  which 
he  sought  new  modes  of  victory,  when  the  old  ones  failed 
mn      1  he  position   taken  by  the  Niagara  at  the  close  of 
,  the  aftair,  the  tact  that  he  sought  the  best  means  of  repair- 
ing  his  loss,  and   the  motive  with   which  he  passed   from 
vessel  to  vessel,  constitute  his  claims  to  admiration      There 
was  no  doubt  a  personal  risk  in  all  the  boats,  but  there 
was  personal  risk  ever^  where  on  such  an  occasion," 
f),nV'?r'  n  ^^^  foregoing  note,  the  portion  in  italics,  is  all 
that  Dr.  Duer  gives.     All  that  precedes  the  word  "  eniraire. 
ment    he  gives   as  a  continued  and  connected  extract  — 
lict  us  examine  this  pretended  extract,  for  its  motive      It  is 
certain  that  this  garbling  is  accidental,  or  it  has  been  done 
by  design.     Is  it  the  first  ?     He  who  reads  the  secrets  of  the 
heart  alone  can  say,  except  through  conjecture.     When 
It  IS  remembered,    however,  that  the  article  was  intended 
as  an  attack  on  the  historian,  is  it  reasonable  to   suppose 
any  man  in  his  senses  would  thus  mutilate  a  passage  ac^ 
cidentally  ?     To  me  it  seems  to  be  intended  as  I  summarv 
of  the  note  rather  than  as  a  quotation,  though  given  aT^he 
atter ;  and  if  so,  there  can  be  no  question  that^he  mut  ,a- 
tion   has  been   made  understandingly.     When   howpvpr 
we  come  t.  see  that  the  real  design  of  the  historian  is  gTven 
in  the  closing  sentences  of  the  note,  and  that  these  senten- 
ces are  altogether  omitted,    can  there  be  a  doubt  as  to  th^ 
intention?     This  after  all,  is  the  best  test  we  can  am  Iv 
Ifan  author  be  deliberately  misquoted,  a.  to  meaninl  it 
^aves  a  suspicion ;  and,  having  given  the  note  in  full,  with 
hL^r"  "^"''^"'^^"•^'   ^  ''^'^  ^he  reader  to  judged; 

The  next  instance  I  shall  cite  leans  still  more  strono-lu 
towards  intentional  deception.  All  the  thre^^Lr  I  f  m 
•now  answering,  or  Messrs.  Burges,  Duer  and  Mackenzie 
contend  that  Capt.  Elliott  did  not  bring  the  Niagara  T«t' 
close  action  at  all,  but  that  she  was  firsl  carrfJi^J^!^ 
aciiou  by  Uapt^  Ferry,  when  he  got  on  board"of  1^^ 
maintain  that  Capt  Elliott  took  the  Niagara  in'o  as  close 
action,  or  about  as  near,  as  Capt.  Perry^  ever  carried  the 
Lawrence,  though  the  latter  subsequently  ZZTe  nI 


M 


?  f'- 


42 


BATTLE    OF    LAKE    ERIE. 


11 


IPiii';' 


iM: 


agara  much  nearer,  when  he    cut  the  line.     Out  of  this 
lust  circumatancc,  I  suppose  all  the  honest  misunderstand- 
ing  on  tni8  point  which  has  occurred,  to  have  taken  its  rise. 
llie  facts  shall  be  explained  in  tlMiir  place;  here,  I  propose 
only  to  suhstanti^ate  my  second  charge   against  J>r.  Du€r. 
Speaking  of  the  danger  which  existed  at  different  points  in 
the  battle,   this  gentleman  says  that  *'  two  places  were  ex- 
empted from  the  ubiquity  of  danger,  and  both  happened  to 
be  successively  occupied  by  Capt.  Elliott— first  on  board 
the  boat,  when  he  was  passing  up  and  down  the  line  »  du- 
nngtlie  height  of  the   engagement'  in  consequence  of  his 
having  volunteered  to  bring  the  distant  vessels  into  action  j 
and  second,  on  board  the  Niagara,  until  Capt.  Perry  board- 
ed her,  and  brought  her  within  reach  of  the  enemy's  guns."" 
I  will  ask  the  reader  to  observe  that,  in  this  extract,  Dr. 
Duer  comments  on  his  own  misquotations,  applying  the 
words  *'  the  height  of  the  engagement,"  to   Capt.  Elliott, 
when,  as  written  by  me,  they  apply  only  to  the  boat  which 
passed  between  the  Caledonia  and  the  Trippe.     When  it 
is  remembered  that  the  charge  intended  to  be  made  out 
against  me  was  a  wish  to  glorify  Capt.  Elliott,  at  the  ex- 
j3ense  of  Capt.  Perry,  this  false  application  of  words  plain- 
ly written,  and  as  plainly  printed,  has  a  very  unpleasant  as- 
pect.     But  this  is  not  my  point.     In  the  extract,  my  re- 
viewer distinctly  asserts  that  the  Niagara  was  not  within 
reach  of  the  enemy's  guns,  until  Capt.  Perry   carried  her 
there.     This,  be  it  remembered,  is  substantially  the  Bur. 
ges-Mackenzie-Duer  theory,    although  Capt.  Mackenzie 

may  happen  to  know  too  much  to  insist  on  it  literally. 

He  would  probably  say  she  was  at  long  shot. 

Now,  Mr.  Duer,  maintaining  this  theory,  cites  the  pres- 
ent Commodore  Turner,  v  ho  commanded  the  Caledonia, 
as  a  witness.  This  gallant  officer  says  in  his  affidavit— 
"  The  Niagara  might  have  relieved  the  Lawrence  from  the 
Queen  Charlotte,  if  she  had  made  proper  exertions  to 
bring  her  to  close  action  :  but,  by  keeping  her  main-top- 
sail aback  and  her  jib  brailed  up,  she  kept  at  too  great  a 
distance   frntn  thp  #»nPTr»v  fn  Aj^  Uim  or»-.r   »^nf^^:^i   :^: 

.      '••J      «v-     vi-ij'    is-rtii    "»ij      iiinlci  itij-    i"j-«JlJ'» 

and  sustained  scarcely  any  herself  until  the  Commodore 
took  command  of  her,  who  immediately  bore  up  and  pas- 
sed through  the  enemy's  line,  firing  both  his  broadsides 


BATTLE    or    LAKE    ERIE. 


43 


It  of  this 
lerstand- 
n  its  rise. 
I  propose 
h.  Duer. 
poirits  ill 
were  ex- 
pen  ed  to 
311  board 
ine  *  du- 
;e  of  his 
)  action ; 
y  board- 
s  guns,^* 
ract,  Dr. 
yinfr  the 
.  EUiott, 
It  which 
When  it 
lade  out 
the  ex- 
Is  plain- 
isant  as- 
,  my  re- 
f  within 
ied  her 
he  Bur. 
ckenzie 
rally. — 

fie  pres- 
edonia,. 
davit — 
rom  the 
ions  to 
lin-top- 
great  a 


with  swell  tremendous  effect,  as  compelled  him  iiistautiv 
to  surrender.  ^ 

^^  It  was  the  genera?  opinion  of  the  Amrrimn  officers,  and 
cxpresseclwtth  much  indignation,  that  Capt>  Elliott  did  not 
do  his  iiuty  in  the  battle  ;  inasmuch  as  he  did  not  brins  his 

VtSSil     AH   SOON  AS   HE  Mi«MT   HAVE  DONE,  into  close  action, 

which  circumstance  only,  made  the  result  of  the  battle  for 
a  short  time  doubtful.  Soon  after  the  victory,  Cnpt.  Elli- 
ott  s  conduet  was  spoken  of,  as  well  in  Gen.  Harrison's 
army  as  m  the  fleet,  with  great  disapprobation  and  cen- 
sure," &.C.  &c.^&c. 

The  foregoing  stands  in  the  affidavit,  as  T  have  given  it ; 
the  remainder  being  unnecessary  for  the  point  before  us. 
\)r.  Duer  g,ves  the  substance  of  Mr.  Turner's  affidavit,  un. 
til  he  reaches  "  She  kept  at  too  great  d  distance  from  the 
enemy  &c.      when  he  puts   in  marks  of  quotation,  and 
professes  to  give  his  words.     The  quotation  goes  on  much 
larther  than  1  have  given  it  above,  with  the  exception  that 
Uie  sentence  I  give  m  italics  is  wholly  omitted  !    Now  this 
js  done  without  any  mark,  or  sign,  to  indicate  the  fact.   The 
words  "  Soon  after  the  victory"  follow,  in  the  next  sen- 
tence   the  words   ''  instantly  to  surrender,"  precisely  as  if 
they  had  been  so  given  by  Mr.  Turner.     The  paragraph 
which  exists  in  the  original  is  sunk,  Dr.   Duer  giving  the 
whole  as  belonging  to  one  and  the  same  paragraph.     Let 
us  search  for  a  motive  for  all  this. 

Dr.  Duer,  it  has  been  shown,  maintains  that  the  Niaga- 
ra  was  not  w,thin  range  of  shot,  until  Capt.  Perry  reached 
Her.     IJis  object  was  cleady  to  criminate  Capt.  Elliott,  and 
why  should  he  drop  this  particular  sentence,  from  his  quo- 
tation?    Every  syllable  of  it,  told  in  /avor  of  his  theory 
but  the  words  "  as  soon  as  he  misrht  have  done,''  and  they 
flatly  contradict  it.     Without  these  awkward  and  tell-tale 
words,  the  passage  would  read  "  inasmuch  as  lie  did  not 
bring  his  vessel  into  close   action,"  which  was  precisely 
what  Dr.  Duer  was  contending  for.     But  the  words  "  as 
soon  as  he  might  have  done"  were  there,  and  they  com- 
piece.y  aiier  the  sense.     To  suppose  that  a  sentence  which 
commenced  a  paragraph  was  dropped  accidentally,  ishigh- 
\y  umeasonable,  and  if  we  look  at  the  passage,  we  see  that 
i^r.  Ouer  could  not  quote  it,  without  showing  that  his  own 
witness  contradicts  him.      He  chose,  therefore,  to  avoid  it. 


s       f- 


44 


BATTLE    OP    LAKE    EIUE. 


Hm 


lljlli 
.1111; 


PI  P' 


One  morft  instance  on  this  point  must  suffice.  The 
vAmrtrti  ajrain^st  Co:n.  Elliott,  uy  iiuleed  nmv  be  seen 
by  the  extract  juHt  ^nven  IVoin  Mr.  Turner'^  uOidavit,  is 
that  he  did  not  close  and  assist  the  Lawrence,  at  a  peri- 
od of  the  action  when  he  lay  astern  of  the  Caledonia,  with 
his  main-top-sail  to  the  mast,  and  his  jib  brailed.  Unless 
explained,  such  a  circumstance  mii'ht  jt-rMy  criiiiinate  any 
man.  But  Com.  Elliott  says,  and  I  •  Jr^t  resently  show 
that  he  says  it  truly,  that  his  senior  oh  -  /,  Capt.  Perry, 
had  given  him  a  station  in  the  line,  astern  of  the  Caledo- 
nia, fJiat  he  enjoined  it  on  him  to  keep  that  station^  and  it 
was  for  him  who  gave  the  order,  to  take  the  responsibility 
of  changing  his  own  line  of  battle,  if  circumstances  re- 
quired a  change.  This  might  have  been  done  by  signal, 
or  by  sending  a  boat,  and,  as  Capt.  Perry  who  was  in  the 
Lawrence,  himself,  knew  how  much  she  had  8uffered,a  fact 
Capt.  Elliott  could  not  know,  except  by  conjecture,  it  was 
precisely  the  duty  a  commander-in-chief  was  present  to 
perform.  Com.  Elliott  further  affirms,  that  only  one  sig- 
nal was  made  by  Capt.  Perry,  while  on  board  the  Law- 
rence, which  was  the  signal  "to engage  as  you  come  up, 
every  one  against  his  opponent,  in  the^line  as  before  desig- 
nated.'' This  signal,  then,  confirmed  the  injunction  to 
keep  the  line,  and  insomuch,  was  an  order  to  the  Niagara 
not  to  pass  the  Caledonia. 

Now  the  point  before  us  relates  to  these  signals.  Capt. 
Perry  might  have  made  a  second  or  a  third  signal,  coun^ 
termanding  the  effect  of  the  first,  and  which  would  have 
obliged  Capt.  Elliott  to  pass  the  Caledonia  much  earlier 
than  he  actually  did.  On  this  head,  Dr.  Duer  quotes— re- 
member, he  pretends  to  quote  the  very  words — from  the  af- 
fidavit of  Dr.  Usher  Parsons,  in  the  following  language : 
*'  Complained  (meaning  the  wounded  officers  of  the  Law- 
rence) that  the  Niagara  did  not  come  up  to  her  station  and 
close  with  the  Queen  Charlotte,  although  frequently  or- 
dered hy  signal,  &c.  &c."  Here,  then.  Dr.  Parsons  was 
made  to  swear  that  the  wounded  officers  complained  that 
Capt.  Elliott  disregarded  signGiU  frequently  made — reiter- 
ated orders  in  fact— to  close.  1  knew  no  such  signals  had 
been  made,  and  I  confess,  as  little  importance  as  I  attach 
to  the  affidavit  of  Dr.  Parsons,  which  shall  be  analvzed  in 


nATTIE    OP    LAKE    ERIE. 


e.  The 
be  seen 
(Javit,  is 
It  a  peri- 
nia,  with 
Unies.s 
tiate  any 
ily  show 
.  Perry, 
CaJedo- 
{,  and  it 
•nsibility 
nces  re- 
7  signal, 
Ls  in  the 
ed,a  fact 
3,  it  was 
esent  to 
f)ne-  sig- 
le  Law- 
3me  up, 
'c  desig- 
ction  to 
Niagara 

.    Capt. 

I,  COUH' 

Id  have 
r  earlier 
tes — re- 
i  the  af- 
rguage : 
le  Law- 
ion  and 
atli/  or- 
)ns  was 
led  that 
—reiter- 
lals  had 
E  attach 
Ivzed  in 


45 


Its  place,  I  was  not  prepared  to  find  him  mnkinff  a  state- 
ment  l.ke  this.  Turning  to  the  affi<lavit  itself,  J  found  he 
swears  to  nothing  of  the  sort,  the  whole  being  merely  one 
of  Dr.  Duer's  quotat.ons-a  very  diflerent  thing,  as  has 
been  already  shown,  from  the  actual  words  pretended  to 
be  given.  What  Dr.  Parsons  really  says  is  tC~"  Com 
plained  that  the  Niagara  (commanded  by  Capt.  Elliotthlid 
not  come  up  to  her  station  and  close  with  the  Queen  Char- 
lotte,  although  he  had  been  ordered  by  si^rnal :  and  this 
I      complaint  Vf^^  frequently  repeated  by  them,^l,c  " 

Here  we  see  that  the  "frequently"  applies  to  the  com- 
phiinis  and  not  to  the  signals.  As  to  the  signal  actually 
given  I  have  quoted  it  verbatim,  as  sworn  to  in  terms,  by 
the  I  erry  witnesses  and  as,  doubtless,  it  was  given  ;  knd 
this  ordered  Capt.  Elliott  to  keep  the  line,  and  not  to  break 
it.  1  here  18  no  doubt  that  this  was  the  legitimate  and  obvi- 
ous meaning  i      the  only  signal  given. 

Thus   we  find  Dr.  Duer  again  misquoting,  in  a  new 
form.      This  one  point,  if  Dr.  Duer's  quotation  were  Z 
curate   would  at  once  condemn  Capt.  Elliott,  and  justly 
place  his  life  in  jeopardy;  but  the  quotation  is  inaccurate 
feome  persons  may  think  this  misplacing  of  the  word  "  fre- 
quently    was  accidental ;  it  certainly  may  have  been,  but 
when  a  man  sits  down  to  attack  others,  as  Dr.  Duer  has 
assailed  both  Com.  Elliott  and  myself,  there  is  a  profound 
moral  obligation  to  use  at  least  ordinary  care  in  such  mat- 
ters,  and  ordinary  care  would  have   prevented  any  such 
mistake^     Besides,  no  mistake  is  made   by  either  Dr.  Du- 
er,  or  Capt.  Mackenzie,  m  my /awor;  whereas  each  wtII 
probably  be  glad,  when  I  have  done  with  him,  to  take  ref- 
uge in  the  allegation  of  having  made  many  mistakes  affainst 
me  !     I  pass  to  the  next  head.  ^ 

4th.  The  article  lays  down  positions  which  its  own  wit« 
nesses  refute.  Two  instances  have  just  been  given.  Dr 
Duer  contends  Capt.  Elliott  did  not  bring  the  Niaffara 
within  Ireach  of  the  enemy's  shot.  Capt.  Turner  says 
lault  was  found  with  him,  because  he  did  not  come  iino 
ciose  action,  as  soon  as  he  might  have  done.  No  man  in 
his  senses  would  use  those  words  concerning  one  who  did 
not  come  into  close  action  at  all.  Mr.  Turner  has  other 
testimony  to  the  same  point,  which  I  reserve  for  Captain 


40 


BATTLE    or    LAKE    ERIE. 


m', 


iiiil 


Mackenzie.  Dr.  Duer  says  Dr.  Parsons  swears  that  the 
wounded  officers  complained  that  Copt..  Elliott  disregarded 
a\ (Tiiah  frequently/ mtule 'y  Dr.  Parsons^H  own  affidavit  con- 
tradicts the  statcnienf.  Other  proof,  and  plenty  of  it  too, 
might  he  adduced  on  this  point,  hut  it  would  make  this 
pamphlet  too  long. 

5th.  It  was  written  with  a  direct  intention  to  deceive,  or 
with  a  carelessness  of  facts  that  is  hut  little  less  culpable, 
when  it  is  remembered  that  character  was  connected  with 
its  statements.  The  truth  of  this  charge  has  already  been 
shown.  Why  was  the  closing  part  of  the  note  about  the 
boats  omitted,  if  the  intention  was  to  deal  fairly.  Let  us 
examine  the  (piestion. 

Capt.  Perry  passed  from  one  vessel  to  another,  in  a  boat, 
during  the  battle.  Many  persons — most  persons  perhaps 
— fancied  this  a  heroic  act,^cr«c,  without  reference  to  the 
motive.  To  me  it  did  not  thus  seem.  I  knew  that  boats 
were  almost  always  in  motion,  in  general  actions  at  sea, 
and  I  believed,  and  still  believe  that  Capt.  Perry  probably 
ran  less  personal  risk,  while  in  that  boat,  than  he  ran  at 
any  other  period  of  the  battle.  The  fire  from  the  enemy 
had  greatly  lessened  at  the  time,  he  was  three  hundred 
yards  from-  their  guns,  even  according  to  Capt*.  Macken- 
zie, and  was  crossing  the  range  of  their  aim.  It  is  scarce- 
ly probable  a  single  gun  was  trained  on  the  boat,  more  es- 
pecially as  Capt.  Perry  was  dressed  in  a  round-about,  and 
could  not  be  recognised.  But,  admitting  that  the  act,^er 
se,  was  what  has  been  pretended — on  what  principle  is 
Capt.  Perry  to  be  lauded  more  than  others  who  did  the 
same  thing  ?  Mr.  Magrath  had  gone  from  the  Niagara  to 
the  Lawrence  in  a  boat,  before  Capt.  Perry  went  from  the 
Lawrence  to  the  Niagara.  Capt.  Elliott  pulled  along  the 
whole  line,  nearly  twice,  in  the  same  boat,  and  the  six  men 
who  composed  the  crew  incurred  the  risks  of  all  these 
movements  ;  that  of  Capt.  Perry's,  and  those  of  Capt.  El- 
liott's. Other  boats  passed  from  vessel  to  vessel.  It  has 
been  said  that  Capt.  Elliott  was  not  exposed  in  the  boat, 
the  same  as  Capt.  Perry.  The  note  in  tiie  history  says 
nothing  about  this  fact,  for  the  object  being"  merely  to  di- 
rect the  public  mind  to  the  real  merit  of  Perry's  conduct, 
it  was  unnecessary ;  but,  in  point  of  feet,  I  believe  Capt. 


BATTLE   OP    LAKE    ERIE. 


47 


le  ran  at 


s  scarce- 


Elliott  took  the  boat  inside  the  Lawrence,  while  going  as- 
tern, and  he  was  in  uniform.     I  believe  this  to  be  the  fact, 
because  Com.  Elliott  distinctly  atfirnis  it,  and  I  have  found 
his  statements  of  the  battle  mainly  corroborated  by  the  tes- 
timony;  because  the  late  Capt.  Stevens  admitted  to  me 
personally,  that  Capt.  Elliott  pulled  along  side  the  Trippe, 
which  was  under  the  fire  of  grape  ac  the   time ;  and  be- 
cause  the  present  Capt.  Montgomery,  and  sailing  master 
1  atem,  both  officers  of  the  Niagara,  say  that  from  the  rel- 
ative positions  of  the  two  brigs,  at  the  time,  they  think 
Capt.  Elliott  must  have  gone  inside.     Now  if  the  claims  of 
Perry  be  reduced  to  the  mere  gallantry  of  exposing  his  per- 
son in  the  boat,  his  friends  cannot  deny  that  others  must 
share  the  credit  with  him.     What  is  his  exploit  compared 
to  Capt.  Piatt's  on  Lake  Champlain,  who  pulled  about  un- 
der the  fire  of  a  ship  like  the  Confiance,  eariy  in  the   ac^ 
tion.and  had  a  twenty-four  pound  shot  actually  pass  through 
his  boat.     If  this  act  is  to  make  a  hero,  there  are  other  he- 
roes besides  Perry  ;  and  better  heroes,  too,  if  quality  is  to 
he  estimated  by  risks.     But  I  give  Perry  high   credit  for 
this  particular  act,   though  it  is  altogether   in  connection 
with  his  motive  for  changing  his   vessel.     It  was  a  noble 
thing  to  fight  on  board  one  vessel  until  she  was  a  wreck, 

and  then  to  seek  another  to  struggle  on  for  victory but  it 

was  a  far  inleriordeed  simply  to  pass  from  one  vessel  to  an- 
other in  a  boat.  Now,  I  give  Perry  full  credit  for  the  first 
m  the  note ;  it  was  in  truth  the  object  of  the  note,  and  I 
had  a  right  to  demand  if  my  note  were  quoted  at  all,  that 
It  should  be  quoted  in  reference  to  this  object,  that  the 
reader  might  judge  for  himself.  Dr.  Duer'  has  not  done 
me  this  simple  justice  ;  besides  mutilating  the  part  he  does 
quote,  making  me  impute  acts  to  Capt.  Elliott  that  I  do 
not  impute  to  him,  he  omits  entirely  the  close  of  the  note, 
thus  misleading  the  reader  as  to  its  drift.  If  this  were 
not  a  direct  intention  to  deceive,  what  was  it  1— it  was  cer- 
tainly a  carelessnes*of  facts,  that,  under  the  circumstan- 
ces, was  scarcely  less  culpable. 

I  put  also  the  omission  of  the  pointed  part  of  Mr.  Tur- 
ners's  affidavit,  the  insertion  of  the  word  "  frequently"  into 
that  of  Dr.  Parsons,  in  a  place  where  it  was  not  used,  thus 
essentially   altering  the  sense,  and  all  the  other  instances 


!! 


I' 


I 


48 


BATTLE    OF    LAME    ERIE. 


1*1 


of  departure  from  facts  lliar  I  have  cited,  most  CfipcciaDy 
that  where  Dr.  Duer  atliriiiH  thut  Ceii.  TuwHon  planned 
and  conducted  the  euterpriHe  in  IHl'i,  into  this  Haine  cate- 
gory. I  might  increase  tlie  \ht,  hut  enough  huH  heen  uhowii 
to  cBtahhuh  the  point,  wliich  compIetcH  my  cuue  us  against 
this  critic.  In  this  instance,  however,  as  in  that  of  Mr. 
Burges^s,  I  shall  auNwer  most  of  his  testimony  and  state- 
ments, in  answering  those  of  Capt.  Mackenzie,  to  whose 
Biography  of  Perry  I  now  come. 

Cupt.  Mackenzie  is,  in  some  respects  at  least,  an  antago- 
nist wortliy  of  an  old  sailor,  in  a  controversy  of  this  sort. 
I  am  aware  that  Dr.  Duer  was  once  in  the  navy,  hut  I 
douht  if  he  ever  knew  the  names  of  the  running  gear  of  an 
Albany  sloop.  Capt.  Mackenzie  certainly  knows  too 
much  of  a  snip  to  make  the  mistakes  into  which  my 
other  critics  have  fallen. 

Against  Capt.  Mackenzie's  Biography  I  make  the  fol- 
lowing objections.  1st,  It  is  not  what  a  biography  ought 
to  be,  but  is  an  rx parte  statement  of  facts,  keeping  the  most 
and  the  best  evidence  out  of  view.  2(1,  It  cooly  accuses 
Capt.  Elliott,  whose  name  is  so  closely  interwoven  with 
the  life  of  his  subject,  of  acts,  the  unequivocal  evidence 
of  the  falsehood  of  which  accusations,  was  in  the  posses- 
sion of  Capt.  Mackenzie  when  he  brought  them,  Jind  this 
in  a  form  that  renders  it  difficult  to  believe  he  did  not  see 
the  whole  case ;  3d — he  contradicts  his  own  witnessed ; 
4th — lie  constantly  contradicts  the  best  evidence  the  case 
allows,  on  altogether  insufficient  grounds ;  5th — he  is 
grossly  and  absurdly  illogical ;  6th — he  has  manifested  au 
indifference  to  justice,  wliich  is  discreditable  to  any  writer, 
and  which  approaches  an  indifference  to  trt'th 

I  come  now  to  the  proofs  of  what  I  have  said.  The 
charges  are  serious,  and  should  be  clearly  established.  Of 
my  ability  to  make  them  out,  however,  I  entertain  no  more 
doubt,  thf  n  I  feel  what  must  be  the  consequences  to 
Capt.  Mackenzie,  in  the  minds  of  alf  clear  headed  and 
upright  men.     This  controversy  was  not  of  my  seeking  ; 


uiiui^i    (.III;   ittipuiaixutis     timt     llicsc 


persons  have  brought  against  me,  and  I  now  strike  a  blow 
in  behalf  of  truth,  not  from  any  deference  to  a  public 
opinion  that,  in  my  judgment,  has  not  honesty  enough  to 


BATTLR    OP    LAKB    ERIR. 


40 


feel  much  interest  in  the  exposure  of  duplicity  and  nrtifice, 
but   that  my  children    may    point  to  the   facts,  with  just 
pride  that  they  hod  a  father  wiio  dared  to  stem  popular 
prejudice,  in  order  to  write  truth.    A  i^rreat  clamor  has  Iweii 
raised  against  Com.  fclliott,  under  the  iniluenco  of  party 
feehntf,  and  while  one  half  the  nation  has  been  made  to 
immolate   him,    without  examination,   the  other  has  not 
shown  a  disposition  to  defend.     I  cannot  see  why  others 
might  not  have  detected  the  character  of  most  of  th«  evi- 
dence  on  which  this  has  been  done,  as  well  as  myself    It 
was  accessible,  vulnerable  in  all  its  parts,  and  there  was  a 
high  niorul  necessity  for  examining  previously  to  condemn- 
ing.     Ihe  mighty  public  of  this  great  country,  which  is 
but  another  word  for  the  republic,  did  not  feel  this  neces- 
sity, and  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  it  has  decided  without 
inquiry.     The  injury  done  Capt.  Elliott  is  not  easily  meas- 
ured.    X  hat  he  IS  now  suffering  under  the  effects  of  this 
precipitate  judgment,  in  more  ways  than  one,  I  hold  to  be 
evident;  but  he  is  fortunate  that  he  has  escaped  so  liffhtJy 
Let  It  be  imagined,  for  a  moment,  that  he  had  assumed  the 
responsibility  of  executing  three  men  without  a  trial,  and 
then   ancy  the  result !     His  life,  justly  or  unjustly,  would 
have  been  the  forfeit.     Such  are  the  penalties  of  error  •  and 
every  citizen  should  remember  that  while  there  is  nothing 
which  IS  more  formidable,  which  more  closely  assimilates 
rnen  to  their  Creator,  than  a  just  and  virtuous  public  opinion 
there  is  nothing  more  miserably  contemptible,  in  a  moral 
pomtofvie^y  at  least,  and  which  more  closely  assimilates 
them  to  the  lowest  beings  of  darkness,  than  when  thev  ioin 
lu  supporting  an  unjust  clamor,  equally  without  examina- 
itT:  ''"i'^**^^"?.  '^T''^     ^  '^^  ^^'^  ^"*'  emphasis,  for  I 

greatly  ill  used  ip. an,  and  I  never  expect  to  receive  the 
atonement  for  the  wrong  that  has  been  done  myself  in 
connection  with  this  affair.  Calumny  may  be  refuted  and 
rebuked  ;  but  it  is  never  wholly  effaced. 

Capt.  Mackenzie's  principal  charge  against  me  was  that 


/ 


'*v 


fiO 


DATTLB   or    LAKE    ERIC. 


I  lind  ondenvorcd  to  buiid  up  the  repiitniion  of  Com.  Elliott, 
lit  tliu  expeiiiie  of  tliiit  of  Com.  I'erry.  Tliiii  charge  of 
itrtcif,  would  not  iimouuit  to  much,  an  justicn  mif^ht^  iiud  ill 
some  monsuro  doti  require  Much  ii  coumc,  in  this  sery  dis< 
cu88ioii ;  though  it  did  not  in  the  history  I  have  written  ; 
hut  (^npt.  Macken/ie  leaves  the  impression  that  I  have  done 
this  with  dishonest  views.  80  tar  as  I  am  c(mceriied| 
Copt.  Mackenzie  has  respected  appearances  a  little ;  hut 
as  regards  Com.  Filliott,  he  has  thrown  them  aside  alto- 
gether, and  I  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  has  written  of 
that  officer  sundry  as  atrocious  libels — 1  use  the  word  uii- 
derstandingly,  and  mean  untenable  calumnies — as  arc 
easily  to  be  found  coming  from  any  man  who  lias  claims 
to  be  deemed  a  gentleman.  Com.  Filliott  in  living,  and 
might  defend  hiniHcIf ;  but  1  can  scarcely  touch  the  sid)ject 
nt  all,  without  vindicating  that  officer,  as  it  might  be  inci- 
dentally, from  some  of  the  grossest  of  these  aspersions. — 
As  my  aim  will  be  to  show  how  utterly  worthless  is  this 
biography  of  Perry,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  the  battle  of  Lake 
Erie,  any  thing  that  proves  its  true  character  forms  a  legiti- 
mate part  of  my  argument,  whether  it  strictly  applies  to 
my  own  account  of  the  events  or  not.  In  this  way,  then, 
I  shall  treat  the  subject.     To  come  to  the  points  : 

1st.  Capt.  Mackenzie's  book  is  not  what  a  biography 
ought  to  be,  but  is  an  ex  parte  statement  of  facts,  keeping 
tlie  most  and  best  evidence  entirely  out  of  view. 

The  only  material  accusation  against  Com.  Elliott,  in 
relation  to  the  battle,  was  that  he  kept  the  Niagara  too  long 
astern  of  the  Caledonia,  and  that  he  did  not  close  early 
enough  effectually  to  succour  the  Lawrence.  Messrs. 
IJurges,  Duer  and  Mackenzie  add  to  this,  that  Capt.  Elliott 
did  not  bring  the  Niagara  into  close  action  at  all ;  though 
neither  Com.  Perry,  nor  the  best  of  his  witnesses,  took  that 
ground.  Now,  in  tlie  nature  of  things,  the  officers  of  the 
Niagara  were  the  best  witnesses  of  Capt.  Elliott's  conduct, 
in  such  circumstances,  that  the  case  aflorded.  They  surely 
knew  what  the  vessel  did  ;  whether  she  were  under  fire  or 
not  ;  what  injuries  slie  received,  and  "W  ho  was  nurt,  liCiicr 
than  those  who  were  enveloped  in  smoke  at  a  distance. 
Crnteris  paribus,  they  were,  as  a  rule,  the  best  witnesses  of 
the  facts.     But  other  things  were  not  equal ;  they  were 


MATTI.E    or    I.AKB    ERIE, 


51 


rt,   licilcf 


«li«ritmilv  ili<.  hoHt  witiii.««eH  on  tli«  Hc<.re  of  iiitellitfencc, 
mid  c,„  iho  Mcore  of  f...|in^.     It  wu.  a  fact  that  could  „oJ 
well  e^cnpo  o.iu  an  f„,„i|,ar  with  i\w  w-rvice  by  usiociation. 
OH   iiiyHHi.  that,   an  a  whohs  ihr  otYicvrn  of  the   Niai/artt 
were  the  HiipmoM  of  ih«  crticerH  ol   the  Lawrence,  in  the 
^v.iy  of  intelh^r..„ce.     On  this  point,  th<ui«h  it  m  entitled 
<.conH,d,.rat,on,  I  an.  not  indnced  to  lay  nuich  «tre«H;  Htill  I 
hear  (roni  all  <piarterM,  that  three  of  tluMdlicers  of  the  Law- 
rence, who  are  arnon^  Capt.  IVrry'^  nioHt  pnmiinent  wit- 
iieHHes,  are  or  were  nn-n  of  capacities  ho  low.  «h  to  reiukr 
their  op,mon«  of  very  little  value,     it  is  a  fact  more  avail- 
able  a^  an  argument,  atid  one  that  I  alhiwed  to  have  itn  inst 
influence,  that  the  otncers  of  the  Lawrence  had  not  the 
experience,  ot  the  otHcers  of  the   Niagara.      On  hoard  the 
latter,  in   addition   to  her  lieutenants  and  master,    were 
Messrs.  Magrath  and  lJrevor>rt,  the  purser,  and  a  captain  in 
the  army  acting  as  marine  oflicer.  Mr.  Magrath  had  heeii 
a  lieutenant  in  the  navy,  and  had  resigned  only  four  years 
hefore,  and  wouM  have  been  the  senior  of  Perry,  himself 
had  he  retained  his  commission.     This  gentleman  was  u 
man  of  talents  and  a  cap  tai  seaman.     In  the  latter,  or, 
.deed  m  the  other  capacity,  he  probably  had  no  superior 
m    hat  Hcpiadron.     C«pt.  Brevoort,   I  believe  had   been  a 
sailor  in  youth-at  all  events,  whether  actually  accustomed 
to  the  sea   or  not,  he  was  accustomed  to  the  lake.     1  saw 

aLT"^'  "\  'f^*-^'  ""  ^"'^^  ^^^'^'  i"  ^^^'"'"an^i  of  th^ 
tha?  the  ^  l?r  ^''°"f  "^^«  ^»'«  ^^r  department~the  same 
IipI    tl.nl  captured  and  called  the   Detroit-and  I 

hZt    Tfi^'V'  ''I"'^'  y""^''  employed  in  this  duty, 

eing,   at  the  time,  a  lieutenant  in  the  army.     This  gen! 

Ueman  was  put  in  the  squadron  on  account  of  his  experi- 

thilT: '''^'V!!''\t"'^'''^^^  ^^'^  P'*«P""^«'-«"ce  in  favor  of 
the  officers  of  the  Niagara,  which  the  characters,  and  ex- 
penence  of  these  two  gentlemen  would  give,  it  would  be 

te^r  'r.^  T""'^  ^^  «^  ^^j"^g«^  ^y  ""/  <^«"rt  in  Chris- 
tendomj  but  there  are  still  other  circumstances  to  turn  th« 
.-iwuics  more  in  iavor  of  their  testimony. 

trn  1    f  .t^*"®'^  ""^  ^^®  Lawrence— or  some  of  them— con- 

hot  nf  H    ''^"'"'''"''^^  and  of  course  each  other,  while 

those  of  the  Niagara,  in  the  main,  agree.     Then,  on  the 


i    » 


» 

a  ! 


I    '  I 


II 


52 


BATTLE   OP   LAKE    ERIE. 


i 


I  I 


score  offering,  the  circumstances  are  in  favor  of  tlie  offi- 
cers of  the  Niagara.  The  Lawrence,  after  suffering  very 
severely  struck;  and  this  in  a  battle,  in  which  all  the 
enemy  were  subsequently  captured,  and  the  Lawrence 
herself  retaken.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  gallantry 
of  her  crew,  and  the  circumstances  which  led  to  such  a 
result,  the  10th  Sept,  as  regards  the  Lawrence,  was  a 
defeat.  It  is  easy  to  see  that  men  so  circumstanced  might 
not  be  rigidly  just.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Niagara  was 
the  principal  agent  in  turning  the  fortunes  of  the  day.  It 
mattered  not,  to  her  officers,  whether  this  were  done  under 
Perry  or  Elliott;  they  were  actively  employed.  The 
Niagara,  too,  met  with  a  heavier  comparative  loss  in  this 
battle,  than  was  sustained  by  any  American  vessel  in  that 
war,  the  Lawrence  and  Essex  excepted.  She  had  not 
been  engaged  in  child's  play,  at  all ;  and  there  was  noth- 
ing particularly  to  disturb  the  feelings  of  her  crew.  As 
between  them,  and  the  crew  of  the  Lawrence,  the  question 
of  feeling  was  altogether  in  their  favor.     Though  a  dispute 

existed  between  them  and  the  people  of  the  other  brig 

this  question  was  strictly  between  Perry  and  Elliott.  Both 
had  been  their  commanders  in  this  very  battle,  and  it  is 
not  easy  to  suppose,  thai,  among  all  the  brave  men  in  the 
Niagara,  men  who  were  the  near  witnesses  of  that  which 
passed,  one  could  not  be  found  to  say  so,  if  he  fancied  that 
Capt.  Elliott  had  disgraced  his  brig,  and  Perry  alone  had 
saved  them  all  from  reproach. 

In  whatever  way,  then,  we  view  this  point,  the  officers 
of  the  Niagara  were  better  witnesses,  than  those  of  the 
Lawrence.  In  addition  to  this,  they  materially  outnumber 
them. 

In  the  face  of  these  facts,  Capt.  Mackenzie  suppresses 
the  testimony  in  favor  of  Capt.  Elliott,  while  he  lays 
before  the  world,  as  much  of  that  against  him  as  suited  his 
own  purposes.  If  this  be  not  reducing  history  to  an  ex 
parte  statement,  it  is  not  easy  to  say  wnat  it  is.  I  shall 
not  dwell  further  on  this  point,  here,  as  its  effisct  will  be 
noticed  as  I  proceed. 

2d.  It  cooly  accuses  Capt.  Elliott  of  acts,  the  unequivo- 
cal evidence  of  the  untruth  of  which  was  in  the  possession 
of  Capt.   Mackenzie  when  he  brought  the  accusations  j 


BATTLE   OP   LAKE   EHIE. 


S3 


B  id  tli.3  in  a  fi,rm  that  renders  it  difficult  to  believe  l.c 

did  not  see  the  whole  case,     I  am  conscious  this  is  a  vcrv 

grave  charge  ,  hut  i,  shall  be  clearly  made  out  ^ 

Capt-  Mackenzie  justly  represents  Com.  Elliott  as  com 

Tse  act  T<  "'%^"'S'"-\.«"gl"  to  have  been  put  in 
Close  action,  at  an  hour  earlier  than  J  past  2,  the  time 
when  Perry  says  she   succeeded  in  closing      The  factT 

that  Com  Elliott  does  and  rf£i  complain  that  injusticeTaa 

to  these  complaints,  and  some  efforts  made  by  Capt.  eS 

pa^:  2^o4rvo"Si?i»^-^--'«  -y^  -  -S 

.s  singular  to  find  Capt.  Elliott,  before  the  Court  of  I.Zirv 
into  his  conduct  in  1815,  when  the  British  official  aSm 
7^tr"Tl"^'^'  court-martial  ,„  Commodore  Bar 
cay  had  made  him  appear  so  much  more  disadvantage- 
Zll't  :::T'^  endeavoring  to  substantiate  tmTX 
report,  and  making   a  .juestion  as  to  its   AccuntcY  a 

LEADING  ONE  TO  ALMOST  EVERY  WITNESS."  ^"""""^  " 

L,et  us  look  at  the  character  of  this  cliai-irp      It  a:,.-     .i 
accuses  Capt.  Elliott  of  seeking  re/usebefor'e  .  le  Com  'f 
tef "nT-'f  "•' '"^^J""^  ^"S"^h accusations,  in  Capt 

u[:i-L-:ifarL„t?;o:t^o:^ri^:Hf^^^^^^ 

unworthy  of  the  commission  he  lidds  Tf  true     andt  1^     "* 
the  inference  that  the  British  court  du    hk  TnV    *^'^' 

T^ZlL^Jll':^""".  /'•r  '*'>  '"'"ginary  imputation- 
calumny  •'^'^"»''"°°^.  "owever,  form  the  'gist  of  the 

So  far  from  Capt.   Elliott's  having  been  euiltv  „f  th. 
glanng  decepUon   and   degrading  mfann::,"";!:?;  whL- 


II  i 


'...! 


64 


BATTLE    OP    LAKE    ERIE. 


'  jitf 


Gapt.  Mackenzie  ha»  thus  openly  clmr^d  Iiim,  in  a  book 
dcl4berately  wmten,  and  widely  circulated,  if  not  consci- 
entiously  prepared ;  there  is  the  clearest  evidence  of  its 
untruth,  and  evidence  that  was  in  Capt.  Mackenzie's  pos- 
session at  the  time  he  wrote ;  evidence  that  he  ought  to 
have  consulted,  and  which  he  has  given  the  public  reason 
to  suppose  he  did  consult. 

I  write  with  an  exemplified  copy  of  the  record  of  this 
Court  before  me.  This  record  has  been  repeatedly  pub- 
lished, and  if  Capt.  Mackenzie  does  not  refer  to  it,  in  this 
yery  note  of  his,  to  what  evidence  does  he  refer  ?  It  is  the 
only  proof  m  existence,  of  the  questions  put  by  Capt.  Elliott, 
while  It  IS  complete  on  that  head.  I  now  extract  from  it, 
evenj  question  that  this  officer  asked  the  loitnesses,  viz— 

£t  Nelson  Wehster-^April  24th,  1815. 

%  Caj)t.  Elliott.— ''Bid  the  Niagara  at  any  time,  during 
the  action,  attempt  to  make  off  from  the  British  fleet  ?" 

"  What  was  the  distance  from  the  Lawrence  to  the  Niag. 
ara,  wlien  the  firing  commenced  from  the  enemy  V 

"  What  was  the  situation  of  botli  fleets  when  the  action 
commenced  on  our  part  1  and  what  time  did  I  order  the 
Caledonia  out  of  the  line  1  and  how  soon  afterwards  did  I 
place  my  vessel  ahead  of  the  Lawrence  ?  and  what  appear- 
ed to  be  the  situation  of  the  British  fleet  ?" 

•♦Was  not  my  helm  up,  and  the  Niagara  standing  di- 
rectly for  the  enemy's  fleet,  when  Capt.  Perry  came  on 
board  V  ^  j 

'*  What  was  the  situation  of  the  gun-boats  when  I  left 
the  Niagara,  and  how  were  they  disposed  of  when  I  reach- 
ed the  head  of  the  enemy'^  line  with  them  ?" 

"  How  did  the  Lawrence  bear  of  the  Niagara  when  Capt. 
Perry  came  on  board,  and  what  distance  was  she  from  the 
Niagara  r' 

Lt.  Yarnall — one  of  the  Pemj  witnesses 

^y  Capt.  Elliott. — Did  the  Niagara,  at  any  time  du- 
ring the  aoiion,  attempt  to  make  off  from  the  British  fleet  ? 

Lt.  Yarnell.  "No."  (This  was.  the  strongest  witness 
against  Capt  EJliott.) 


I  a  book 
t  consci- 
cc  of  its 
;ie's  po3- 
oug/it  to 
c  reason 

0  of  this 
dly  pub- 
t,  in  this 
It  is  tile 
.  Eliiott, 
from  it, 
viz — 

1815. 

,  (luring 

Bt?" 

e  Niag. 

;  action 
■der  the 
Is  did  I 
appear- 


11  I  left 
reach- 


iie  dii- 
fleet? 
itness 


BATTLE   OF   LAKE   ERIE.  Q^ 

"wimtwJ,L^  ""'""'«""=«-•''  ^"""  "'«  enemy?" 

not  come"  toX  rnrvfafa^n""^  "'  "f '"""  ''"^  y- 
along sKle,  as  yo.'^^rinkTg  V<''  ""  '°  """^  ""«  "-' 

ering  ttfZre"  wTst  l"'"  "'  "'t""^'  *°  E"«'  '''««<'-. 
and  Elliott  meet  Mrf,h;„  ''«"'"  ^'''"**"  ^apts.  Perry 
to  him  t^?at  there  wal ,.  1*^  ^"^^  *'"  ""^  ''<"'<=''•  «"d  .ay 
that  as  for  your  pit  you  had' 'r*'"^  "*""'•''*  '«'"°"'  l"'^ 
officers  an  e'qual  ^hlre  rfertdft  ?'  ™^'  ^"''"  ^^"'^  "^  "'°- 

the"a"r„  r"  "'  "'""  '■™'"  "'^  ''Si''"'"S  to  the  end  of 

Lt.  Webster— re.examined~April25th,  ISIS 

AZT.  S thrcom""  '"  ""'  "'«  ^^'^d'"'-'  from 
""l^lr^^^^^r^^'"'^  enemy,  fi... 

™i:rnro^L"nd;:rvfT"^  tbatSUre  tbev 
took  effect  very  soon  an/«h^  ^Part-the  enemy's  shoi 
mast  back-steyl"  '  "'""^^  """  "^'^^  ^^^-'op- 

Ni  Ws":;;';:  a:r  ^^Cl.  Jl.?"""-^'  •<>  "«  -^-'^d  at  the 

edl.r.:l1l?r.l\"„?/i-r  fh^  ?^»-re»ee  when  I  pass- 
"  T    'f  k'V ^^  ""^  "cau  ui  me  line  i" 

Posit^:^:  Crrelnd  taU'r^  ^^  '"«  -'«'- 
What  damage  did  the  Niagara  sustain  i„  the  action  V 


56 


BATTLE    OF    LAKE    EBIE. 


"Was  tlio  Niagara  nt  any  time  duriiifr  the  action,  from 
half  to  three  quarters  of  a  mile  on  the  weatlier  how  ^f  the 
Lawrence  after  1  ordered  the  Caledonia  out  of  the  line  ?" 

**  Did  you  ohserve  the  enemy's  ship  Queen  Charlotte 
bear  up  and  nm  away  from  the  Niagara,  and  if  do,  when  V 

Mids h ipman  Man tgom  cry^ 

By  Capt.  Efliott.-^*'  Did  the  Niagara,  at  any  time 
during  the  action,  attempt  to  make  lier  escai>e  from  the 
British  fleet  ?" 

"  What  was  the  distance  from  the  Lawrence  to  the  Ni- 
agara, when  the  enemy's  fire  commenced  ?  and  what  dis- 
tance was  the  Lawrence,  Caledonia  and  Niagara,  from 
the  enemy's  fleet?" 

"  Wliat  was  the  distance  from  the  Lawrence  to  the  Ni- 
agara when  we  commenced  our  fire  'i  and  what  distance 
was  each  of  those  vessels  from  the  enemy's  fleet  ?" 

"What  was  the  distance  from  the  liawrence  to  the  Cale- 
donia, and  from  the  Caledonia  to  the  Niagara  ?  and  what 
distance  was  each  of  those  vessels  from  the  enemy's  fleet, 
when  I  ordered  the  Caledonia  to  bear  up  and  let  me  pass 
her?" 

*♦  When  I  ordered  the  Caledonia  to  bear  up,  where  did  I 
place  the  Niagara,  and  where  was  she  when  Capt.  Perry 
came  on  board  ?" 

"  When  Capt  Perry  came  on  board  the  Niagara,  did  he 
not  find  her  helm  up,  and  that  vessel  standing  direct  for  the 
enemy's  ship  Detroit  ?" 

"What  was  the  situation  of  the  gun-boats  when  I  left 
the  Niagara  ?  and  how  were  they  disposed  of  when  brought 
to  the  head  of  the  enemy's  line  ?" 

"  When  I  hailed  the  gun-boats,  did  I  not  order  them  to 
make  sail  and  keep  close  under  my  stern "?" 

"  What  was  the  established  order  of  battle,  and  is  the 
sketch  now  shown  you  a  correct  view  of  the  situation  of 
both  fleets  at  the  time  stated  ?" 

"  When  Capt.  Perry  came  on  board  the  Niagara,  was 
she  half  a  mile  on  the  weather  bow  of  the  Lawrence  ?" 

"  j!^iu  the  Lawrence  and  Caledonia,  at  any  time  in  the 
action,  bear  up,  and  leave  the  Niasrara  with  her  main-too- 
sail  aback. 


leave  her  on  a  wind  ?' 


ion,  from 
)w  of  the 
le  line  ?" 
Charlotte 
>  when  ?" 


nny  time 
from  the 

)  the  Ni- 
H^hat  dis- 
ira,  from 

)  the  Ni- 
distance 

the  Cale- 

md  what 

y's  fleet, 

me  pass 

ere  did  I 
n.  Perry 

I,  did  he 
Bt  for  the 

3n  I  left 
brought 


id  is  the 
lation  of 

ara,  was 

ce  r' 

le  in  the 
ain-lop- 


BATTLE    OP    LAKE    ERIE. 


57 


^n::^oso::!:;or^'''''''  ^"^^'-  ^^^^^  ^-^  ^»-  ^-^-a 

Answer.-"  The  Niagara  had  closed   with  the  enemy 
someUmc  before  Capt.  Perry  came  on  board  ?"  ^ 

Uid  not  the  wmd  die  away  almost  to  a  calm  when  the 
action  was  pretty  well  on  ?'» 

avolPtlt'i^  '"''?'^>  «*"Pl^»«en  Charlotte  hear  up  to 
avoid  the  Niagara's  fire,  and  if  so,  at  what  time  V 

Mr.  Adams. 

By  Capt.  Elliott.-.-i),W  the  Lawrence  and  Caledonia 

ofalZ  ^""T/^^  ""''r^  ^""  '^'^^  ^^^^-  mulct  shot 
of  the  enemy  and  leave  the  Niagara  firing  at  the  enemy's 
smaller  vessels  at  a  distanced  *        "^       *  ^"^^^i^  * 

Mr,  Tatem. 

By  Capt    Elliott,---^^  What  conversation   passed  he 

Kr  r"'  "^'^^  "^"^^  "'^^" '  ^^^"^-^  - "«-'  the" 

paZg  her  r '  "''  '''^'-  "^"^^^  ^°  ^^^^  ^^—  -^-» 

of  the  Lawrence,  when  Capt.  Perry  came  on  board  ?- 

nn  th! n'  "         u  ^^^J?  "P'  ^"^  ^^»«  ^'«g«r^  bearing  down 
on  the  enemy  when  Capt.  Perry  came  on  board  r  ^ 

vo„  hlvp  ^°"    ^^5  ""u  ^^^^'•on  board  the  Lawrence,  would 
01  l.apt.  Elliott  in  commg  to  the  relief  of  the  Lawrence?" 
Mr.  Cummings-^April  26th,  1815. 
No  questions  put  by  Capt.  Elliott. 

Lt.  Forrest,  of  Lawrence. 
No  questions  by  Capt.  Elliott.- 

FIlTJjl\*'^'?'^\*^^  reco^dT^y  question  put  by  Capt. 
Elliott,  having  been  here  given.  Here,  then,  is  unanswer- 
able  proof  that  Cant.  VAWntt  h«a  ««*  i. *_..:.._.    °   ? 

kenl  S^-f  '»5''"''««^«?"if'ed  to  him  b|  Capt.  Mac- 
renort '..„  f .J"  fr"™  ""■""«  |he  truth  of  Capt.  Peril's 
hF^.L  V  /  "^  ■""*  (<!"«««""')  t»  a'most  every  witness," 
He  asks  it  of  no  witness  at  all.    On  the  contrary,  many  of 


I     * 


»|- 


58 


BATTLE    OP    LAKE    EIIIE. 


'  I 


Ilis  questions,  most  of  tliosc  tlint  refer  to  tlic  ilistnncc!,  one 
or  two  of  wliich  1  have  put  in  italics,  have  u  direct  and 
ol)viou8  tendency  to  sliow  that  the  i)art  of  tlie  report  of 
wliich  Cnpt.  Elliott  complained,  viz— that  he  did  not  jret 
into  close  action  until  A  past  two,  was  inaccurate.  Instead 
of  falling  hack  on  Capt.  Perry's  report,  then,  to  cover  him- 
self, Capt  Elliott,  by  implication,  would  seem  rather  to 
question  its  accuracy  in  these  very  interrogatories. 

^o  much  for  Capt.  Mackenzie's  accuracy,  in  a  grave 
matter  materially  affecting  character.  Did  he  mean  to 
utter  falsehood,  to  criminate  Capt.  Elliott  without  cause, 
with  all  the  evidence  in  his  own  hands?  A  severe  jud"-e 
might  hold  him  to  this  issue,  and  it  would  greatly  em- 
barrass this  accusing  gentleman  to  escape  the  conse- 
quences ;  but  I  have  a  little  charity  for  him.  I  think  Capt. 
Mackenzie's  mind  to  be  veiy  singularly  constituted,  and 
lliat  he  did  not  mean  all  he  has  so  clearly  said.  So  many 
mstances  of  this  peculiarity  of  moral  conformation  have 
forced  themselves  on  my  notice,  as  to  leave  no  doubt  of  its 
existence.  Capt.  Mackenzie  can  only  see  one  side  of  a 
question.  He  is  a  man  of  prejudice  and  denunciation,  and 
he  accuses,  less  under  evidence,  than  under  convictions. 
Were  he  inspired,  this  last  might  do  well  enough ;  but,  as 
he  is  only  a  man,  and  quite  ns  often  wrong  a-  right,  fearful 
consequences  have  followed  from  nis  mistakes. 

I  take  it,  when  called  on  to  defend  this  charge  against 
Capt.  Elliott,  it  will  be  done  in  this  way.  He  considers 
the  Court  of  1815,  a  white-washing  court — he  even  inti- 
mates this  much,  pretty  plainly— and  as  the  court  does  put 
the  question  he  mentions,  he  ascribes  it  to  Capt.  Elliott, 
although  the  charge  is  purely  personal,  Capt.  Elliott  could 
not  prevent  the  court  from  asking  what  questions  it  pleas- 
ed,  the  question  was  very  pertinent  as  asked  by  the  court, 
and  this  court  had  Henry  Wheatonfor  a  Judge  Advocate, 
and  old  Alexander  Murray,  the  father  of  the  service,  and 
the  late  Captain  Evans,  and  the  late  Com.  George 
Rodgers  for  its  members.     In  a  word,  I  suppose  Capt. 

... .,  «iv„i.i.jg  TTttc  liiai  mc  cuuri  were  me  loois  oi 

Capt.  Elliott,  and  as  they  asked  the  questions,  in  a  moral 
sense  he  asked  the  questions.  If  Capt.  Mackenzie  is  not 
allowed  the  benefit  of  this  apology,  miserable  and  insuffi- 


BATTI.P,   OP   LAKE    EniE.  gjj 

cicnt-na,  puerile  ns  it  in-I  sec  no  otl.er  to  rive  him 

Mr  W.,Pp»  .!,„    i.T      1    .  Spe"cer  is  said  to  linve  told 

ijpoii   tins  Capt.  Macltenzis  distinclly  tells  the   Court  He 
In  i-iiry  ho  had  reason  to  infer  that  at  least  tJe„iy  me"  l,w 

hfJSZ.  '"•  *I"<='""""e'8  " at  least."     Who  ever 

heard  of  a  conspirator's  underrating  his  force  to  a  rerr?.!.  ? 
-wlio,  but  Capt.  Mackenzie  ?     The  affair  J  ,LT 

:u::rL'ri'x  ■""""«"•  "-'siltTel  ^rr 

strated.     Look   at  the  case  of  the  Paul  Jones's  LnVrf   L 
exposed   by  myself,  i„  Grahams'  Ma..azine  articTe  I»Lr. 
In  that  mstance  Cap..  Mackenzie  did  n^ot    crupTe  o  woutd 
thefeehngs  of  an  honorable  family  onc:r  «„ruZJl 

and  o,.  preconceived  opinionsrwhjrLteftersfntroX; 
S'.  '"'^'"  ''."?•  •""  ''''»  '"  possession  of  focts    I  " 

o7ev^„Siri tiotVer^^^i^^t^^^^^ 
trs  Ir,,  "m  ^"^^•'"" "'"'  -rd'ed-xr- 

but  ^oml  '^L'^"'-'*'' '»"<■'''  "o'-e  proof  to  establish  charge  2d 
otherToLts      "'"  """"^  incidentally.  i„  making  o'ut  the 

f„lf ''■  "•','rO"J™'''cts  his  own  witnesses.  Cant.  Mackenzie 
falls  mto  this  childish  error,  constantly;  but  I  wUI  cite  "wo 
or.tl,ree  strong  and  simple  instances.'^inly,  to  support  »; 


•il' 


60 


BATTLE   OF    LAKE    ERIE. 


The  question  connected  witli  the  Lake  Erie  controversy 
was  one  purely  of  distance.  No  one  pretends  that  Capt. 
Klliott  showed  personal  fear,  a  silly  and  totally  unsup- 
ported tale  about  his  dodging  a  shot,  and  which  is  distinctly 
proved  to  relate  to  another  transaction,  excepted  ;  but  the 
charge  is  that  he  kept  the  Niagara  at  too  great  a  distance 
from  the  enemy.  This  distance  is  disputed ;  Capt.  Perry's 
witnesses  making  it  greater,  Capt.  Elliott's  less ;  though 
neither  make  it  as  great  u«  my  three  assailants.  Of  course, 
Capt.  Mackenzie  wishes  to  have  it  thought  he  has  testi- 
mony for  what  he  says  ;  and,  in  his  appendix,  he  gives 
the  evidence  on  which  he  relies ;  saying  nothing  about  that 
of  the  other  side,  however.  The  following  is  the  list  of  the 
witnesses  of  Capt.  Mackenzie,  viz : — 

Messrs.  Turner 
Parsons 
Stevens 
Forrest 
ChampHn 
Breese 
Brownell 

Taylor 

The  affidavits  of  all  these  gentlemen,  Mr.  Forrest  ex- 
cepted, are  furnished.  From  Mr.  Forrest  a  simple  letter, 
unsworn  to,  is  given.  There  was  no  distance  so  likely  to 
be  ascertained  with  accuracy,  as  that  at  which  the  action 
commenced,  if  we  except  that  when  the  vessels  got  so  near 
to  each  other  as  to  render  mistake  next  to  impossible.  At 
the  commencement  of  the  action,  there  was  no  smoke  ;  all 
was  attention  and  expectation  ;  the  distance  was  actually 
measured  by  shot,  no  bad  guides,  and  distance  was  the  one 
thing  to  be  ascertained.  Of  the  eight  witnesses  presented 
by  Capt.  Mackenzie,  five  speak  of  the  distance  at  which  the 
action  commenced  ;  viz — 

Messrs.  Turner 
Stevens 
Champlin 
Breese 

& 
Brownell 


BATTLE    OF    LAKE    ERIE. 


61 


at  about  thediHtance  of  n  mile  '"^       ^  Lawrence. 

At  er  all  tins   testimony  ftom  his  own  witnesses    whi^f 
does  the  reader  t  link  Prtii/iVT,,  j         •  wuhlsscs,   what 

Here  are  UilVX^^^Sl^tll'-^^'sr  '"<> ""'r" ' 

y  firt?:  itri::' a.  r  ?  "'''^'  -™-'-^  '!-s 

effect  "^  Here^  thet  Ca,,t  wf  r''''''"*'',"'"*''' '"''  ""'  '"ke 
«f  k;  •    '         '     '*'*'•  ^latikenzje  discredits  everv  aha 

ea  .ng  ,),«  matter  as  if  out  of  all  <,ueslion^tlTc™^ 

ofa\at.?eTX''Lt•r^^"^.r"^'  "r """  ™'"- 

n,.«^;f«^        I  ""  '  "^^  believes  these  verv  dis- 

credited  witnesses   when    thev  sneak  nf  fKo^?/^    I 
Niao-ara  was  frnm  fh«  t  "^    ^  f  ^"®  distance  the 

Again— Capt.  Mackenzie  says,  page  228,  vol   1     «'TI.«. 

sentence  he  adr.:!!>:  Mr  C:o";er  a'l.rMVir  "'*'"  '"  ""' 
mJioo      1M  •  .   .      ^^"opei  and  Mr.  Uurees  sav  nin** 

tW   n     n         'T"'   ''?   "'°'''''='-     (^'"'y  Mackenzie."  ke 
this  !)     Our  squadron  was  sailino-  at  the  ratp  of  tJr.  ! 

the  most,  t,vo  and   a  half  or  three  kn„'/"r'.''.':'.'« 
anf  ahair^T?'"  ''.f '^  '"^'^«'  "  "- d-'stanceTf  T^Ue 

take  It  this  IS  a  fa,r  speciman  of  Capt.  Mackenzie's 


hi  I 


02 


BATTLl   OP   LAKE    ERIK. 


mind  III.  calculation  i.  that  of  a  ico-officcr,  ns  n^ainM 
two  know-noth.ngs/'  and  Jie  »  quite  «at»«fiecl  with  it, 
and  with  hjmsef.  The  authonty  for  what  ih.  hhtoru 
.ays  i«  Mr  Tuy  or.  Me  ,ai/ing  master  of  (he  Lawrence, 
the  man  wbo-e  dnty  .t  wan  to  note  this  distance  on  the 
loff,  who,a8  Capt.  Macken/Je  sliows  himself,  >r  ke  i$  one 
Vii    !  ??'f  »'»/'«'•'««'  mtnesse,,  says  in  Win  affi.favit— "At 

*n  ;n  1  "  •?.T"'^;*^^?"'""fc'  of  gainin^r  the  wmd,  hove 
to  m  line  with  tlicr  heads  to  the  westward,  at  about  three 
leagues  distance,"  dtc. 

To  me  it  seemed  safer,  as  winds  are  ynriahle,  and  had 
been  partic.ilar.ly  so  that  day,  to  tru«t  to  the  sworn  state- 
me.its  of  those  who  were  present,  when  there  was  nothing 
connected  w.th  the  fact  to  warp  their  judgments,  than  to 

b^of  h '"^  '*''"'^-^^  '"T  "T"-  ^"'^^-  Mackenzie  is  so 
lond  ot  his  own  opinions,  that  he  could  not  refrain  from  the 
practice  of  asserting  them,  even  at  the  expense  of  nirai„ 
contradicting  his  own  witness  f  |t  is  proper  to  add,  that  I 
discover  no  evidence  to  show  at  what  rate  the  American 
squadron  was  going  at  this  time.  During  the  action  it  is 
known  that  the  wind  varied  from  something  near,  or  quite 
a  calm,   to  a  four  or  five   knot  breeze,      then  I  humbly 

f.h«T' 1  ^'^'^'' /",rT^*  ^'''^'•'  with  their  top-sails 
aback,  do  not  have  half  a  knot  of  drift  and  headway,  in  a 
two  knot  breeze.  /i '"  " 

One  more  instance  of  Capt.  Mackenzie's  contradicting 
his  own  witnesses,  out  of  many  that  offer,  must  suffice.— 
Com.   Turner  is  one  of  the   best  of  bis  witnesses,  on  the 
score  of  rank  and  character.     I  shall  now  show,  that  Capt. 
Mackenzie  has  no  more  scruple  in  discrediting  him,  than 
in  discrediting  any  one  else.     Capt.  Mackenzie  in  a  note, 
^T'u^'l"^^'^'  says-"The  most    » judicious'  position 
which  the  Niagara  could  have  had,  either  for  breakinor  the 
line  or  taking  her  due  share  in  the  battle,  was  the  pos'itio- 
assigned    to  her   along  side  the  Queen  Charlotte,  and  u 
close  quarters;  a   position  which,  be  it  understood,  as  in- 
volvnig  the  whole  substance  of  the  question,  she  never  occu^ 
ptea.       Here    Capt.   Mackenzie  asserts  that  the  Niagara 
was  noiin  close  aclion—meaniug  until  Capt.  Perry  ffot  on 
board  her.     He   repeatedly  asserts  the   same   thing  else- 
where,  but  this  is  sufficient  for  our  present  position. 


4i< 


I  ngainxt 
with  it, 
I  hiitory 
iwrence, 
on  the 
\e  ii  one 
it—"  At 
nd,  hove 
ut  three 

and  hnd 
'n  state- 
nothing 
than  to 
':ie  is  so 
fom  the 
f  nj^niii 
I,  that  I 
nerican 
an,  it  is 
r  quite, 
hum  hi  J 
Dji-sails 
ly,  in  a 

dieting 
ffice. — 
on  the 
t  Capt. 
1,  than 
a  note, 
•osition 
in^  the 
ositio*^ 
and  u. 
as  in- 
r  occU' 
iaffara 
^ot  on 
^  else- 


■ATTLEor   LAKE    EElE.  gA 

In  the   foruKoin^  extract  Capt.  Mackenzie  contradicti 
Turner     7f'"  '"'^  T'''''^  ^^^^«'  ""^  '"'  cont^^~W 

WttH  en«hh.:i  *     .     '  ^^   '""'^  springing  ujs  Capt.  Elliott 
wan  enahled  to  bring  his  vesael,  the  Niatfara,  irallantlv  int , 

atl^r;  tT.:  F;r 'l  "^  '"/^"^^"  CharlttJ^  D^t" 
Huu  ail    tl  e  English  vesselH    were  near  each  other    it  wa« 

not  possible   to  bn  in   close  action   with    the  one   without 
be.ng  ,„  close  action,  as  to  alL     But  Capt,  M  "cken/  e  w 
probably  insist  on  the  notion  that  Capt.  l>errv  inearcrn 
Klliotl  was  '♦  ENAI5LFi^l>"  t..  .,        V       i  ^  »neant  l^npt. 
that  hp  JU  \f  ^7"*;;*"'^*^     t"  »o    i"to   close  action  ;  not 
hat  he  did  It,     Let  h.m  have   ti.e  benefit  of  this  sub  letv 
or  a    ew  minutes,   then.     He    contradicts  Capt.    Perry 
when  he  says  that  Capt.  Elliott's  station  was  at  cLe  qua/ 
rv7;te  o.^"^""    ?«^*""«'  '-   ^^"Pt,   Perr;hiZ  f 

'Sr'difecfin;^  '"^-  '^l  ^''''^'  ^''^^^  »'«  '««"«d  an 

order  directing  m  what  manner  the  line  was  to  be  formed  • 

U^e  several  vessels  to  keep  within  half  a  cable's  lengt  lof 
serve  their  stations  m  the  tinc'^^h  beinxr  u  necessarv  /on 

Te?  "r:;  tfX^^'^r'^  ^'«^"-  was^rdTrrtrdir; 

er  tire  at  the  Queen  Charlotte,  it  could  only  be  done  from 
ZTZalur  ''  ^I'^^^'^'d-i-'  -*»ich  Ltion  she  r 
3ns"b  Iv  r''r*  '^n  '''M^^  ""  ^'^P^'  Elliott's  own 
a  c^aZ  il^Hni'r  ''""J^.^P^  ^^"y  «ft«rward.  makes  it 
a  Charge  against  Capt,  Elliott,  Uiat  he  did  not  atiack  the 
Queen  Charlotte;  but  thg  proof  is  of  the  cirrest  nature 
hat  this  could  not  be  done,  without  vioiating  re  primal^ 
order  to  preserve  the  line,  **         primaiy 

alter  this,  Uapt.  I'erry  told  me  that  Capt.  Elliott  wisher) 

ileX     "  '^f  """  "'■  "-'^  "'««'"'  '"port  which  sLrd  that 
OFT  ^^r*,"*  ""':  "»«"  «'»'«  period  of  the  engaRement 

hat  part  of  h.s  report  incorrect,  as  it  had   been  agreed  to 

enve  the  question  to  two  commissioned  officers  of  tKeet 

(Lieutenant  Edwards,  who  was  „res„nf  Zf  „..  i  r    "?*'' 

the  officers  selected).     I  answered,"!-, hough;'t-i.;7"pa"rtTf 

Iv^rdf^sLrer    ""  -'-'^— '.  .o'whichL':.Ed5 

This  is  plain  English.     Capt.  Turner  shows  how  he 


1W 


m 


04 


BATTLE    or   f.AKl    CRII. 


iiriflorMtofx   the  *'S'!i\  A  in  rift  .***!.»»  •.  .        i. 

not  iiMTii  ahthtu    to    urrform     .1...1   1        1         i  •••♦•"ti  » 

.1.        I      ,  -^  prijormy   niMi   hf  ,|  ,,„  iiliowx    tlint  he 

w;;;;',:' '.'".;'""•"":■"  "*■  •  ■'''''•  ''-"^  "-'"•  ^......y;'.,;;: 

Km.    '1       T?"  '^"".'1''"""-  "l"'».lv  K.v..„.  ,h„   (;.,,„. 
Mliot.    .|„|  „„,   |,„,,^   ,,„  „,„^,     „,cNmi(uru,  i.,u,clo,c 

«.«KMr,.  „,.,.  W,,,,.  <,./,„,.  „.„„„,.  I,,,;..     Tins  Cup,  M,ut 

poim  *""""»<''••     i'  >»  tin...  U.  proceed  to  the  nexl 

"Itli.   FTfico.i»l.,ntlyc<..itr,.(lictH  tli.' best cvi.lencc  llio  ciwc 

".  r;;::;'r:'''''V''"''''""'"'  «'•" ^  it-".'™": 

i>t.ii  «.t  lip  tliiit  only  „ii,,  „r  „v,.  I were  liun  mi  Imnnl 

Molt  rrif ,    m"  J"'"'".""' ''"""' "'"  '""• ""' '"  »«""»• 

i»Io»t  «1  l.apt.    Miickeii/.ie'«  witiiess.s   miy  timt  "  It  wn>  k 
recetv.-,!  ,.,,i„i„„  i„  „,„  „,„,,  „,„       .,.^.  „f^       C.r  mo.h  re 

wom,de,l,  \,c.       See  Mr.    Stevei.s'i.  ..(lidavit,  pa^e  iJC7, 

ooiiiio,!"'^'''.'"'"'"'''"'  ''•'"  ','."•  "'"'<•""""•  "'"t  "  "  received 
h    Tli^n.T    ■"•r""f   '"""  "«'"»»"•'"»«   WI.0  eiiterfii., 

ooini  ,^  ""^  '1  T  ''"  «""■"  '^■''  ""I'l-'fi-'S  thU  "received 
o  ,  ,  on,  „  where  lie  s.iys-"  The  M«^r,,ra  Imd  t,v«  killed 
ni.d  t^venty-thrcc  wounded;  all  liut  two  of  the  wound" 

her,  an  Mated  hy  the  Surgeon  who  attended  them." 
Jii  the  hrst   place  dipt.  Mackenzie  and  the    "  received 

the  other  that  ^^<,  men  were  hurt  before  Ciipt.  Perry  reael.- 
ed  the  Niagara  If  out  of  the  action,  an  Messrs.  Diier  a,  d 
Burges  contend,  even  th.^se  arc  two  too  many.  But  the 
Surgeon  who  attended  them,"  says  nothing  of  the  sort. 
ur.  1-arsons  is  meant,  and  here  are   his  words  :— "  The 

«.ag.ira  (the  Surgeon  of  that  vessel  having  been  sick,)  and 
out  ol  twenty  cases,  not  more  than  one  nr  .»„  .,.;,.  .u,.,. 
were  wounded  while  Capt.  Elliott  was  on  board  the' shi^" 
wZVn"1  *'"."''.«'"='<'■  "»""«lf.  admits  that  two  me,, 
were  k,lled,  and  it  is  to  be  presumed  they  did  not  tell  Dr. 


■  ATTLR    or    I.AKr.    KRIK. 


06 


onnancr, 
<  thnt  he 
Miplt>  tliii 
hill  (Jupl. 
into  cluie 
iniiii  cfi!' 
iiijKht  thu 
)t  Marli- 
"♦  ntiothcT 

ihv    lU'At 

the  CAHO 
L'linu  has 
>n  hoard 

0  action. 

1  action. 
It  was  a 
irnodore 
>iit>  man 
gc  iiG7, 

received 
ntertain 
receivt'd 

0  killed 
oundod 
nand  of 

cceived 
»wc,  and 
'  reach- 
uer  and 
But  the 
he  sort. 
-"  The 

1  of  the 
k,)  and 

ship." 
0  men 
ell  Pr. 


l'nr«on»,  •Mhc  iiecond  day  nftiT  tho    nr»m«  •»      i 

**  were  Mruek."     Thii.  H'J  ,»        "*°   ncUou^     n-hcri  they 

«l.".rly  i„  thJuZ!rJ  ''""•""""-•<-•«"....  .I.....M..e„ t 
«d,  from   the  <irst  of  »l...ir  "  M«ys--    1  hat  the  wound- 

no7^  mr,^5  ?  Parsons',  category  and  ti.e  slight  cases 
not  rtported,  must  Imvo  amounted  to  six  or  ei.rl.t  ,nnr„  " 
V|--.*  or  (jignt  ii.ore  out  of  the  category.)  Five  "were  "kTlIp^ 
during, he  action  and  a  few  died  sooifafter;  onlman  wa^ 
.nortully  wounded  „„  ,he  berth-decli  very  early  i„"he  co" 


m 


IIATTI.n    OF    I.ilKI!    RUrU. 


tOHt  hy  »i  Himt  whiuh  iiiiHHml  tlirou^li  both  HuU^n  of  t»M.  viM- 
»e\.  --•••llH)   |»iociN«  porioil  „r(  „,,t.   IN.ny»«  coming  on 

I  T  .  .""^  *'"'*'''♦  '"'^  '  **•'■'"'>'  '"''"^^*'  tliiit  nion/thm. 
Unit  t  ir  al»ov«  niiinlHT  wc^rr  wouiHird  \wi'orv  \w  hofinhd 
Ui.  lliiM  I  w«^ll  ncdilm,  that  ivlin,  \a.  WrbHfrr  wiih 
hrou^rht  bf^low,  tho  ward-room  iiiid  Hirrra^o  wrro  rro\v<UMl 
with  woimdod,  and  I  havo  hoard  him  uny  that  at  th«  timu 
ho  wnN  knookcti  down,  tho  Coinmixforo  had  not  coni«  ou 
hoanl.'* 

>Vo  will  now  turn  to  l.t.  Woh«ter^  frHtiinony  hrforr  thf^ 
Court  ot    Inquiry,  in   1815.     (apt.  Mlfiott  anUrd  this  olIL 
cor~»*  Was   not  my  helm   u|»,  and    tluj   Niagara  Htandinir 
directly  tor  tho  ommiy'H  tleot,  when  ('apt.    Perry  eame  on 
l>oard.         lo  winch  the  uiiHwer  wiik— ♦•  7  tras  below  and 
c«n  not  Hay."     This  luin^r  hHow  refer*,  to  the  time  he  was 
luiocked  down,  and  complet.dy  coverH  Dr.  Barton'M  ea8e. 
Mr.  WehHter  inakcH  a  similar  aiiHwer  to  anotlnr  <nie.stion 
which  reternMl  to  the  time  when  Capt.  Perry  enuie  on  iM.ard. 
I\or  IN  thiH  nil.   This  irenth^man  says,  in  answer  to  a  ones- 
tion  nhont  the  injuries  received  hy  the  Nia^rarn,  with  other 
thin^rs,  .*  There  were   two    men   killed  from  my  division, 
Jf>-jj  /  wtuthihw,  and  a  number  of  men  woiimh.d  on 
board. 

Now  all  this  is  imtiirul  and  clear.  Mr.  Webster's  an. 
•wrors  had  no  reterence  to  the  repent  about  the  'one  man 
wounded,  for  in  1815,  this  point  had  not  got  into  the  con- 
troversy.    It  ftrst  appears  in   1818. 

Capt.  Mont^romory,  formerly  of  the  Niagara,  says—"  I 
was  much  surprised,  sir,  to  observe  in  an  anonyn.oiis 
pamphlet  recently  published,  a  statement  that  not  more 
thnn  three  or  tour  were  killed  or  wounded  at  the  time  of 
i.om  Perry  s  comintr  en  board  the  Niaoara,  as  1  am  most 
hmily  impressed  with  the  belief  that  there  could  not  ham 
been  more  than  that  number  injured  subsequent  to  your 
having  the  Niafrara,'^  6i>c,  ^  '' 

Peter  Perry,  Hoatswain  of  the  Nia^rnru,  swears-"  I  am 
firmly  o  belief  that  not  more  than  four  or  five  men  were 
injured  by  the  enemy's  shot  on  board  the  Niagara  after 

_   — .  y  ^.j.„j,    ^yj  vwuru, 

Mr.  Tatein,  MasterViimte  of  the  Niacaro,  has  nsaurp.l 
mc  perscally,  that  he  tlunks  quite  haif,  if  not  more  of  the 


HATTMi    OF    iMKi:    KIllH. 


67 


ninif  Oil 
>r()  thiiii 
liofirdcd 
Jt'r  wiiH 
^rowiU'il 
ho  tiiiiu 
oiiii)  on 

fon?  tlif^ 
liiN  ofH. 
tiiniliii^ 
airto  on 
'ow  and 

llO  WIIH 

|U<>.stioii 
I  bounl. 
a  «|ncH- 
li  otlior 
ivi.sioii, 
<l«'d  on 

r*s  an- 
It)  man 
le  con- 
's— •»  I' 
yrnoiiH 
:  more 
iino  of 
[)  n^ost 
^  fiaoe 
>  yoMT 

*  I  nin 

I  wore 
after 

isured 
of  the 


ivor    hMl  n.rn  n^coiviul  their  injuriei.   hcfore   CW,  IWry 
rft.,»lm,m,y  ,■,,,,,  ,|iH,m««  „r«  ,,„„Hli,„.,  i|,i„  „my  l„,  ,l,.mii- 

H..I,..  v./:  "r..m..r«"  ,„„„„,;(;..,„.  |'«,r/H(W.„d,.  „,„|  |,r. 
I  ..r»-.n»  H  H.,.l,.,iH...tH  ;  „„,|  ,|,„  ,,«,t  tvi.lc,,,:,,  „r  wl.icl.  tl,« 
ctwe  will  luliiiit,  on  tliii  otlii^  ! 

T..ke  a.mthrr    i„»,„,„,„    '„f    „,„    ,„„„„        ;  ,  ^  , 

0«,,t«..,       M„ck,,..,,i„    „(l„,.,l».    .„„|„r  „|,„rK«  Fourll..- 
11.1    ".•JJH.     pa^r.,    a,|r,,     vol.     |._"  At    I,„||-    ,.,.,»„ 
»rl,.,„    I'orry    l.,ll  tlu,    l.„wr.,nc.,,   .I,„    Ni«„,    a'wl    pT.  .' 

mmrly  hall  a  .ml,..     'ri.<,  l,„„,/..>  l.a.l  Cn^Hl.c...,,! ;  \„r  .,mi„. 

n.i.    r«p..ly  •     .S„.-.l.  i.«;apt.Maok.„,,,ie'»  il,..ory  T   h„ 

K.  tl..,  Ha.m,.,ll.j,„,p„,H.„.te,l  i,.  .II.IWt.ii  frniH,  all  Boi.ig  to 
«\mw  tl.a  III,,  Niagara  waH  paH»l„g  „,,a,ly  l„  If  „  ...ilr  ,„ 
<v...,lwar.l  .>l  tl..,  J.awr.,.,c„,  whicl.toHHd/aoc.r.li;,!;      h  " 

OW..  Hl,»W..,K,  WaH  .l.,„„    |„„„|„„|  ,„„|    (Ifty  j,„rJ„  to    wi,.,|. 

Ml...  t  d..l  .,„t,  l,owcv.,r,  follow  i„  ,|,«  IVi«Kar«,  (tl.at  i«  fol- 

ow  tho  (^al,..lo„i„  to  leewanl,  wl.,„.  ,|,.,  l,o!^„  u  . Vo  1. 1  Cap  . 

I  11...  t  ,„,„»)  bat  she„r„,l  ,o  wi.Hlwar.l,  a,.,l  l,y  hrailioo  L 

l..sj.l,„,.,n.ack.,.K  „„  ...ai,..t„p.Hail,  l.alaacVl  ti.e  elK.rtl 

»t  l..«  HuilsHo  ..X  t.,  k.„.p  lii,  vcHHel  Htutionary,  and  prevent 

her  approacliKifj  tl.o  cicrny."  ^  I>rtv«ni 

This  is  tl.„    «ul,8ta.,ce  of  C„pt.   l.;||i,„i.„    delin,,u.,ncv- 

nsr.,.„.l,ly  to  Oapt.  Ma.=k,„„i,,.     I„  ord„r  to   u...I.'"hS 

.he  p„„u  the  better.  I  will  Htate  what  I  eooceivo  to  be   th;. 

The  win.l  was  light  at  »o.,th  .mst.  The  Kiiglish  wen- 
ly...S.to  I.,  a  close  line  ahead,  looking  to  the  soHthwurc* 
.....I  westward.  I'erry  formed  his  line  .Tstern  and  to  w","d 
ward,  and  bore  down  with  the  wind  abeam.  Two  schoo- 
...Ms  the  Scor,..on  a,;d  Ariel,  led  the  Americans,  passi  ,g", 
httle  to  w.mlwnrd  of  the  ro.ite  of  the  main  line  The.* 
came  the    Lawrenc.   r„l«.i...,:..    .._  i  »r-  ..    .*  "=« 

v.io    e  I    le -;7 -■■"""■■".,  ii.iu  IVr.agara,  Willi  intcr- 

.Is  „t   half  a  cable's  le..gth  between  thern.     The  rest   of 
li.e  line  is  of  no  importance  here. 

eami'l^rr™^..''"''  ™"7  '""^  «""».  "nd.  »8  the  Americans 
came  withui  .heir  reach,  they  opened,  principally  on   the 


OS 


IIATTLK    OK    I.AKK    KIUH. 


m  J 


LiiwuMioo,  ihf»  lUNiifHi  o(  ilio   liir 


was  a 


^«»    VfHM'Is.      I'iihliiii;  lif^ 


PiMoaoliin^   l«Miwl«.wl>,  .iihlMimiinif   liravily,  I 


nuulo  sail  in  tiir  Lawr 
oC  liis     carroiiados. 


<'rry 
piico,  (o  f^vi  tho  mnuirr  v.  tliiiii  n  adi 

\vitiu*MS(*H    wlio  lt»Mtiiy    agaiiiNt 


'I' 


ri 


Ml 


apt.  Kllioii,  rvidrmly  tliiiik   tlio  lallrr  ou^lit  lo'liav*-  iim. 
taudlhis    luaiMiMiviv,  asllio  vviiul   wtuihl  liavo  carri.Ml    tliu 
I\[ai.ani  ,|..u  i.  as   xvill  aiul   as  fast  as  it  liul  llio  Lawiriico. 
llH7alstMi|.poaii,.  (Iiiiik  dial  as  Capi.   KHiotl  was  diivcl- 
willo  oii^a^ro  tiio  riiarlt.ilr,  wlwoh  ship  sliiao<Mu«r  l.nili  n 
wluul  ihsia.Ko  fniilior  lo  tlit«  w.'siwanl,  wiilim  tlir  lirsi  lialf 
Jjonr,  tiial  ii  Mas  his  .hity  U>    (oUoxv  Uvv  at  all    ha/anls.— 
llH'v  ov<MhM»k  tho  all  im,KMiaiii  fact  that  ('apt.  INmtv  liad 
lonually  laid  ilouji  a  linr  o(  haltir,  (hat  Uv  had  •♦  knjoini.i* 
It  upon  Ihr  I'oniinandtrs  to  imiimkuvk  tiiiciu  htationn  in 
•niK   m\k";    that  llm   ordt  is  lo   t'n^aj»t'  dillVnul    vrsst'ls 
inoant  to  Jir,?  al  thoso  voss.ls  (nnn  \\w  \uu\  and  that  iho  fust 
ohjoctwas  to  prrsorvo  tho  lino,  as^ivon,  whicludomM'.i)uld 
j^ivo  oonoontraiion  and  ordor  (o  tho  altaok.      If  Pony  lod 
uhoad  ofhis  own  ordor  ofUattlo,  ho  was  inosponsihlo,  but 
otliors  wouhl  not  have  kvn. 

Tho  !.awioiico.sailin^r  lu-ttor,  loll  tho  Calodonia  iistoni, 
the  latlor   hoinjr  a  luoroliain    hri^r    annotl  for  tho  oiuiso.— . 
I  ns  noo.ossaiily  kopt  tht»  Niaoara  astorn  also,  which  luiir, 
loUowinu"  dnooily  in  tho  wako  of  the  Calo.lonia,  was  ohlii*-- 
Oil  to  braoo  hor  maintop-sail  sharft  ahaok,  in  order  t.)  pro- 
vont    ^romjr    into   hor.     Those   wore  the    onJt/    occasions, 
while  (^ipt.  Klliott  was  in   hor,  that  the  Aiat^ara  had    her 
top-su.l  aback   and  jib  brailod.     (^apt.  IVrry  was  present, 
knew    best    how   ninch  ho    waniotl   assistance,    and    was 
l>ound,  on  every  principle  of  military  service,  to  take  the  re- 
sponsibility of  chanoiiiii-  his  own  line  of  battle.      If  he  was 
not  ihore  for  snch  a  purpose,  when   necessary,  be  was  not 
tbere  for  tho  purposes  of  a   eommandor-in-cJiief,     It  was* 
clearly  bis  duti/  to  have  ordered  the  Nia^rara  tt)  pass  the 
Caledonia,  if  circnmstancea  rotpiirod  it ;  and  it  was  the  du- 
/.y  of  Capt.  Elliott  to  remain  wbere  he  bat!  been    placed, 
mud  circumstances  induced  him  to  think  his    commander 
could  not  eontrcd  events.     Any   other  course  would   have 
O!,  t'.\  uic  jjro^sest  irisubordinarioii,  and  Capt.  Eliititt  mi^lit 
have  been  rumod  in  the  event  of  an  accident.   Tbere  is  no 
l>4*iuciple  more  unju^st,  tbnn  to  bold  an  oflicerto  iberespou- 


,  IVrry 
III  niu:li 
agaiiiNt 
ivf  iiiii. 
irti  tliu 
wrriico. 
•i  iUrvcX- 
Im'iiIi  n 
ii'Nt  lialf 
anln. — 
iry  had 

ilJ(>IM'.l» 
iONN  IN 
VJ'SSt'ls 
iio  fllNl 
15  couM 
ri  V  led 
>lo,  bul 

llbtiTli, 

iiisty.— 

\i  llli^r, 
I  oblijj;'- 
to  pre- 
iisions, 
ul    iici' 
lesont, 
i    was 
the  re- 
w  was 
as  not 
[t    WUj* 
iss  the 
he  du- 
hicecl,, 
ander 

have 
niii^ht 

is  IIQ 
ispou- 


IIATTI.K    OK    I.AKK    KH||.:. 


60 


H.hihy  oloho.he,,eea.,d  diHolMMliencr.  in  tU.  saiue  hreath, 
AlWat.n,..,  <.ap,.   |.:||„„|   delmninnl  to  pass  the  (Jule- 
do.im.on    hiHown    responsihihly.        ||,.    nays  he    thought 
I'ony  must  have  heen  kdh.<l.    H.  did  pann,  Lmu^  <|,n^ 
Iv  ...  the  l,awre,.eeVs  wake,  aod  .nakin.,  nail ;   not  throwi   L 
t,»p.sa.I  ahaek    am    h.ningaway  to  windwar<l,  an  innin^. 
U><\  o„,hv  Capt.  IVIaekrn/.io.      hut  then,    was  htlh,  or   m. 
viii.l    ami  time  passrd   helore  th.^  Nia^nira  eoidd  eh,se     At 
.Mi,.h  t  le  hi-eo,.,.  r.eshene<l,  when  ihelawrenee,  a  w  eck 
;l«opped  astern  ami  to  lerwar.l.      The  Nia,mra  p  ,ss<.<l   her 
'''  ^v.ndward.      The  Cair.lonia.  whiej.  v.ssH   hlivii...  pivot 
^^....s.and  her  enemy  nearer  to  h.-wanl,  had  k<.pt  mon'  olK, 
ollowed  to  Jeeward  of  .he  Law.enee.      Th..  I 'nolish  novJ 
heijan   to  draw  ahead,  also,  and   the   Niairara  ma.le   more 
sail,  and  steered  h,r  ihr  hra.l  of  iln,    l-lnoliMl,   line,  where 
"lo..ewereto  he   fonial  .heir  two    Imprest  vessels.       Vvvvy 
..ow  hdlowed  the  Niagara  i.i  a  boat,  ami  reaehed  her  i.iHt 
as  she  was  eoin.no-  „,>  al„.am  oflhe  De.roi.  an<l  (Charlotte, 
il.slant  Irom  a  tho.isan.l  to  (inren  hundred  feet,  or  ahout  as 
near  as  the  Lawrenee  had  evt'r  not. 

Nothin^r  is  oasier  than  to  show  the  ^enei-al  truth  of  this 
s  atement,  hy  the  best  testimony  the  case  will  allow,  (^apt. 
I  erry  says  (.apt.  ICIhott  eame  into  ch  se  ae.icu.  at  half  past 
two.  unless  the  -KIVAIU.KI)"  is  to  he  taken  as  a  miser- 
able and  disre|)utablo  subterfuo;e.  (.^tpt.  Turner  eonlirms 
It,  uneqiuvoeally,  in  two  distinct  passa^r<.H  of  his  aindavit. 
Ml.  laekett  is  a  witness  much  vaunted  by  the  other  side, 
J  r'-H    1 .  f '7V^'^^'".A/  to  publish  his  sfatcmnit,  on  the 

pica  tha  he  ,s  <lead  !  Messrs.  Yarnall,  Torn'st  and  Stevens 
me  (lead,  mid  the  statements  of  the  two  first  have  been  of- 
t«M»  printed  since  their  deaths,  and  those  of  the  latter  m» 
Jloubt  would  be,  It  there  was  occassion.  Whatever  may 
have  been  the  true  motive  for  suppressin^r  Mr.  Fackett's  ev- 
idenco,  It  rtatly  contradicts  the  theory  of  Mr.  Mackenzie  as 
to  he  course  Capt.  Elliott  was  steering,  when  Capt.  Perry 
.mowed  lum  in  a  boat.  Mr.  Packett  says-*'  These  doubts 

(as  to  tll«  I'l'Sidf  nf  tl.ri  J.ji,  \  .., : •         .  .      . 

.,wi   r-     /ii~"    .'    :  "."'v*/  '^^-*^-  iJii:njase<i  wiieu  the  boat 

vith  Capt.  Perry  Icrt  for  the  Nia<.ara.  who  had  at  that  time 

made  sail,  and  was  standings  for  the  head  of  the  line,(Fvi. 

DENTLY   THE    SCENE    01^    ACTION,)    aild  tO    windward   of  tllQ 


'  i 


70 


BATTLE    OF    LAKE    ERIE. 


Lawrence."     The  words  in  the  parenthesis  are  Mr.  Pack- 
ctt'8,  put  in  small  capitals  by  me. 

Who  was  Mr.  Packettl  A  Virginian,  equally  indepen- 
dant  of  the  two  captains,  who  commanded  the  Ariel,  one 

of  the  vessels  stationed  on  the  Lawrence's  weather  bow. 

His  position  enabled  him  to  see  the  course  Capt.  Elliott  was 
steering,  at  that  moment,  and  it  is  not  within  the  bounds  of 
nioral  probability  that  he  would  have  used  the  language  he 
did,  had  the  Niagara  been  passing  to  windward  of  his  own 
vessel.  Unless  Capt,  Elliott  went  to  windward  of  the 
Ariel  and  Scorpion,  he  could  not  have  passed  half  a  mile 
or  a  quarter  of  a  mile  to  windward  of  the  Lawrence.  These 
two  schooners  were  admitted  to  be  in  close  action,  the 
whole  time.  No  one  pretends  directly  that  the  Niagara 
went  to  windward  of  these  two  schooners,  a  circumstance 
that  is  conclusive  as  to  her  position.  This  fact  would  not 
have  been  overlooked,  in  so  bitter  a  controversy,  had  it 
been  so. 

On  the  other  hand  the  officers  of  the  Niagara,  the  best 
witnesses  as  to  the  position  of  their  own  vessel,  testify,  in 
various  forms,  against  Capt.  Mackenzie's  theory.  Lt. 
Webster  say,  **  We  had  got  into  pretty  close  action,  before 
I  went  below."  This  was  some  time  before  Capt.  Perry 
got  on  board.  Again,  in  answer  to  a  question  from  Capt. 
Elliott,  whether  "  The  Niagara  was,  at  any  time  during 
the  action,  from  half  to  three-quarters  of  a  mile  on  the 
weather  bow  of  the  Lawrence,  after  I  ordered  the  Caledo- 
nia out  of  the  line  ?"— he  says—"  She  was  not.  I  wish 
also  to  correct  my  evidence  of  yesterday,  by  adding  that 
the  Ariel  and  Scorpion  were  on  the  weather  how  of  the 
Lawrence,''''  Again,  in  answer  to  the  question  from  Capt. 
Elliott,  "  What  distance  was  I  from  the  Lawrence  when  I 
passed  her,  gaining  the  head  of  the  line  V  he  says — "  It 
did  not,  in  my  opinion,  exceed  thirty  yards."  On  this 
point,  Mr.  Montgomery  says— "When  Capt.  Elliott  left 
the  Niagara,  they  (the  gun  boats,)  were  all  astern  of  us.— 
We  had  passed  the  Scorpion  and  Ariel.  When  Captain 
Ferry  came  on  board  they  were  all  astern,  except  that' I  do 
not  recollect  whether  the  Scorpion  and  Ariel  were  to  wind- 
ward, or  astern." 

^   This  is  plain  enough.  The  Scorpion  and  Ariel  had  been 


BATTLE   OP   LAKE    ERIE. 


71 


'.  Pack- 

idepen- 
iei,  one 
bow. — 
iott  was 
unds  of 
J  age  he 
lis  own 

of  the 
a  milt 

These 
9n,  the 
Hagara 
istance 
uld  not 

had  it 

le    best 

itify,  ill 

Lt. 

,  before 

Perry 
(I  Capt. 
during 
on  the 
]Jaledo- 
[  wish 
g  that 
of  the 

Capt. 
yhen  I 
— "  It 
in  this 
)tt  left 
f  us. — 
aptain 
it' I  do 
I  wind- 

c?been 


ahead,  and  were  pawed,  in  puHhing  for  tlie   head  of  ,hc 
English  l,„e,  which  was  moving  to  ,hc  westward.      Mr 
Montgomery  doe.  not  remember  whether,  at  that   precise 

Z'    ;         't*  "^"^  ""'.  ^"P'-  Mackenzie's  theory  falls ;  or, 
U,ese  two  schooners,  wh.ch  he  affirms  were  in  close  act  on 
were  not  in  close  action.  ^""", 

t^  CdTa'^d!"     '"^  ''"'*'  '""''' """"  "^"^  ^"'"'g'' '»  P-» 

Mr.  Cummings  says  on  the  same  subject— "I  was  not 

looking  at  her  (the  Lawrence,)  but  whei  I  first  saw  he^ 

mde  off."""  ■■'         """  ""•■"""'*  "'""  "  1"«""  of" 

This  means  astern  as   in  the  previous  answer  he   had 

tTme'  '".ffT"r  '"  ""'  P"'"'""  "*■""=  Ni-'g"™   "bout  that 

Mr.  Tatem,  who  was  then  acting  as  Master  of  the  Nia- 
gara  says,  distinctly,  when  asked,  -  Was  not  the  helm  up 
and  the  Niagara  bearing  down  on  the  enemy  when   Cant' 
Perry  came  on  board  ?"  "  Yes."  ^ 

..  ^r-  ^f5'y'.th«  Boatswain,  says—"  When  very  near  the 
^7sel!"&c.'*"   was  discovered   Capt.  Perry  had  left   his 

Capt.  Brevoort  says—"  Coming   near  the  Lawrence   a 
boat  was  discovered,"  &c.  «>vrtnce,  a 

But,  Mr.  Magrath  was  probably  thebest  witness  of  which 
die  case  admitted.  He  was  a  seaman,  stood  by  Captain 
Elliott  s  side,  and  gives  his  testimony  like  a  man  of  sense 
with  distinctness  and  moderation.  He  says— "  i^rt>m  n 
few  minutes  after  the  eommencement  of  the  action,  the  ene 
my  being  formed  very  close  in  a  line  ahead,  their  sho't 
came  over  us  in  every  direction,  and  repeatedly  hulled  us  " 
It  was  one  of  these  shot  that  passed  through  both  sides  as 
mentioned  by  Dr.  Barton.  AcraJn— unL  Jlf^^.^'' ^^ 
preserved  as  I  believe  the  line  was  intended  to  ^hV formed 
during  the  action  ;  the  Caledonia  being  so  close  ahead  of 

hr^!  ^*  T '^^''^'^H'^^^  frequently  to  keep  the  main  yard 
braced  sharp  aback,  to  keep  from  going  foul  of  her  "— 


72 


BATTLE    OF    LAKE    ERIE. 


[flPl 


Every  seaman  knows  tliat  a  ship  must  be  of  the  wind, 
when  a  top-sail  is  braced  sharj)  aback  ;  when  on  a  wind,  it 
is  braced /a<  aback.  Again — "Capt.  Elliott  hailed  the 
Caledonia,  and  ordered  her  helm  put  up,  which  was  done, 
and  the  Niagara  passed  ahead  hy  filling  the  main-top- sail 
and  setting  the  jib  and  fore  and  aft  mainsails.  The  Ni- 
agara then  closed  in  the  wake  of  the  Lawrence^''''  [Captain 
Mackenzie  says  she  hove-to,  sharp  up] — "  and  continued 
the  action  with  the  usual  vigor,  until  the  Lawrence  dropped 
astern,  when  it  is  well  known  that  the  Niagara  almost 
instantly  came  abreast  of  the  Detroit  and  Queen  Char- 
lotte^ which  could  not  have  been  the  case  had  she  been  a 
long  distance  asteruy 

1  look  upon  Mr.  Magrath*s  as  the  true  version  of  the  bat- 
tle. The  Niagara  was  in  her  station,  astern  of  the  Cale- 
donia, Capt.  Perry  omitting  to  call  her  out  of  it.  At  length, 
Capt.  Elliott  assumed  the  responsibility  of  breaking  the 
line,  and  closed  as  mentioned. 

In  opposition  to  this,  Capt.  Mackenzie  finds  some  con- 
fused and  contradictory  testimony  of  the  other  side.  The 
officers  of  the  Lawrence  seem  to  think  the  order  to  engage 
the  Charlotte  in  the  line,  was  an  order  to  follow  her,  let 
her  go  where  she  might.  The  man  who  reasons  thus,  is 
no  tactician  or  disciplinarian.  The  object  was  to  get  com 
mand  of  the  lake,  and  had  half  the  British  squadron  wore 
round,  and  made  off,  it  would  have  been  Perry's  duty  to 
stay  and  capture  the  remainder — unless,  indeed,  he  felt 
certain  he  was  strong  enough  to  seize  all.  Nothing  is 
plainer  than  the  fact,  that  the  witnesses  against  Captain 
Elliott  fancy  tlie  duty  of  that  officer  was  to  follow  the 
Charlotte,  though  he  broke  the  line.  They  have  not  un- 
derstood the  subject,  having  been  young  and  inexperienced. 

5th.  He  is  grossly  and  absurdly  illogical.  The  friends 
of  Capt.  Mackenzie — some  of  them  at  least, — admit  that 
he  cannot  reason.  They  think  him  honest,  but  allow  he 
is  no  logician.  I  say  he  is  often  absurd  as  a  lo<rician.  Let 
us  look  for  a  few  proofs. 

In  the  first  place  he  adopts  Mr.  Burges's  theory  of  the 
"ENABLED."  This  is  enough,  of  itself,  to  make  any 
man  a  Master  of  Arts,  in  absurdity.  At  first,  I  f  Jr  a  re- 
luctance to  believe  that  an  officer  in  the  Navy  could  suppose 


BATTLE    OF    LAKE    ERIE. 


73 


le  wind) 
I  wind,  it 
liled  the 
as  done, 
i-top-sail 
The  Ni- 
[Cnptain 
untinued 
dropped 
z  almost 
n  Ch  ar- 
te been  a 

fthebat- 
lie  Cale- 
Lt  length, 
king  the 

)me  con- 
le.  The 
►  engage 

her,  let 

thus,  is 
get  com 
ron  wore 

duty  to 
I,  he  felt 
)thing  is 

Captain 
How   the 

not  un- 
erienced. 
3  friends 
mit  that 
illow  he 
lan.  Let 

V  of  the 
.'iko  any 
^^M  a  re- 
I  suppose 


Perry  meditated  any  thing  so  unworthy  ;  but,  on  a  re-e* 
I         ami"H  ion  of  Capt.  Mackenzie's  book,  I  find  it  n.ust  be  con 
I         ceded  that  there  ,s  at  least,  one.     Here  is  wha^he  «„?«' 
alter  quoting  Perry's  words— «♦  H#WP«rr.,  N  i«         "^^says, 
Elliot}  the  bcnejit'of  Metr^n'^cf  S'  i:^  ulfr 
■ours  after  the  Lawrence  ha.I  been  in  close  acHonTeTC 
tually  did  what  he  was  enai.led  to  do ;  which,  l.y  the  con 
current  testimony  of  the  officers  of  the  squadronfcxccpra 
few  of  those  of  the  Niagara,  he  never  L."     Now  ?his 
means  one  of  two  thing«_viv, :  either   that  Peril  told   a 

''en:&d"'''i  ■:[./';■''  "'""'"'"• «'- -btie,rof  th: 

r-i'VAiJL.bU.  Itliinl.an  examination  will  show  it 
means  the  last.  I  shall  „ot  suppose  any  reader  so  weak 
as  to  make  it  necessary  to  go  over  this  silly  and  unprTnc.'! 
pled  point  again.  •'  "nprinci- 

But,  it  may  be  well  to  say,  Capt.  Mackenzie  is  not  iusti 

h,?offii"'  "IT""  ""^f"'  •'"'  "  '"""^""ent   testimony    of 
the  officers  of  the  squadron,  a  pew  of  the.  Nin^n,.„  ^    ? 

^."     This  is  one  of  the  miiiy  instances  in  XhCaZn 
Maekenzu,  assumes  his  ftcts.  There  is  very  h    e  evideC 
.-.nd  tliat  by  no  means  clear  and  direct,  to  show  ,hat  r«n,' 
Elliott  rf,d„«,  take  the  Niagara  into  close   acU„.  whHe 
there  is  a  great  deal  to  show  he  did.     Of  the  eiW.t  wilM 

m:.:rrcT'T%''  ^''''"  "^y  ^«P'-  Macke^'fie'lltlf 

Tigress,  says-..  When  U.e  sigta" 'wfs  ,„adT for'clo"-^  "" 
tion,that  vessel,  (the  Niagarl,  in  or  Zr  ih^^'l.""- 
where  Perry  found  her,  ani  before  he  bore  u    to  ^nt   I^" 

who  are  silent  on  the  nnint .  „„  "  p,!l.T??^  '  ,°*'=ers 
contradicts  it,  and  four  others'  who'rfr^'^'^  '^'mse/j,  who 
Niagara,  virtually  doin»  the  4me  ^A  T  *"«  "^  to  the 
Niagara  excepted  .--Cr.^^-,,  ^^^^7^''^' 
Webster,  and  Br.voort.  in  a  letter  to'  .fe  IT  Je   iZt'e 


• 


<», 


74 


BATTLE    or   LAKE    tnit. 


Navy,  gay — '*  Capt.  Elliott  ordered  the  Culedoniii  to  bear 
up  and  leave  us  room  to  close  with  the  Lawrence ^  which 
was  done^  and  the  action  carried  on  with  great  vigor  and 
»pirit  on  both  sides/'  **  Wc  now  ranged  ahead,  receiving 
the  combined  tires  of  the  Detroit,  Queen  Charlotte  and 
Lady  Prevost,"  &c.  Some  of  these  gentlemen  speak  else- 
where to  the  same  point,  as  Mr.  Magrath  in  the  instance 
already  given.  Messrs.  Montgomery,  Adams,  Tatem, 
Cummings,  and  Berry,  clearly  testify  to  the  same  fact. — 
This  makes  ten  officers  of  the  Niagara  who  contradict  Capt. 
Mackenzie,  including  every  man  of  that  vessel,  Dr.  Barton 
excepted,  who  testified  at  all.  Dr.  Barton  is  excepted, 
merely  because  lie  was  befow.  But  this  is  leading  me 
from  the  absurdity.  The  case  may  be  set  down  among 
those  in  which  Capt.  Mackenzie  disregards  the  witnesses, 
to  make  facts  of  his  own. 

Speaking  of  the  loss  of  the  different  vessels.  Captain 
Mackenzie  reasons  tlnis,  his  object  being  to  show  that 
Cupt.  Elliott  could  not  have  seen  much  fighting  on  the  10th 
September  ; — the  '  pig-taiP  of  his  book,  **  Two  of  the 
schooners,  the  Tigress  and  Porcupine,  had  no  casualties 
whatever  ;  and,  as  the  Trippe  and  Somers  had  each  but 
two  wounded^  it  shows  that"  *'  They  were  unable  to  take 
an  important  part  in  the  battle  until  just  beiore  the  en' my 
struck."  Here,  the  fact  that  only  two  were  wounded,  is 
given  as  an  argument  why  the  vessel  could  not  have  been 
long  engaged ;  and  yet,  Capt.  Mackenzie,  himself,  puts 
the  Caledonia  into  close  fight  from  th^ first,  and  says,  him- 
self, she  had  but  three  wounded.  This  shows  the  virtue 
there  is  in  a  single  man  !  The  Ariel  had  but  four  hurt, 
though  a  gun  burst ;  and  the  Scorpion  but  two,  who  were 
both  killed.  Yet  the  Scorpion,  with  her  two  hits,  was  in 
action  the  first  vessel.  She  actually  began  the  fight !  Into 
this  nonsense,  Mr.  Mackenzie  falls  in  nearly  every  chapter. 

Again,  Mr.  Mackenzie  says,  page  237,  vol.  i — '*  The 
Surgeon  remarks  that  he  could  discern  no  perceptible  dif- 
fprftiip.f*  in  thf\  ratnditu  of  the  iirinff^  oi  the  puns  over  his 
head  during  the  action  ;  throughout,  the  actual  firing 
seemed  as  rapid  as  in  exercise  before  battle."  Tt  is  to  be 
presumed  that  Capt.  Mackenzie  did  not  allude  to  this 
statement  of  the  Surgeon's — Dr.  Parsons,  the  Surgeon^s- 


BATTLE    OP    LAKE    ERIE. 


75 


to  bcnr 
,  which 
^or  and 
ccciving 
)tte  niid 
jak  c'Ihc- 
instance 

Tateni, 
5  fact. — 
ict  Capt. 
.  Barton 
xcepted, 
lin^    me 

anion/[r 

itncBses, 

Captain 
ow  that 
tlie  10th 

of  the 
iisualtics 
ach  but 
to  take 
■i  en' my 
mdcd,  is 
ive  been 
elf,  puts 
ys,  hini- 
je  virtue 
Lir  hurt, 
k'ho  were 
,  was  in 
ht!  Into 
chapter. 
— '»  The 
tible  dif- 
nver  his 
al  firing 
is  to  be 

to  this 
irgeoii'S' 


wfl^Ms  probably  meant,  but  no  matter  who  it  was-with- 
out  w.shn.ir  |n«  readers  to  beheve  it  true.      Ry  way  of  prov- 

Z:,? 'rtn/  ^r  I  '  «."^»'^^«'"«  *'»^^  three  sentences  lower 
down,  Capt.  Mackenzie  jroea  on  to  nay—"  One  by  one  the 

be  finTr'  tr  ""'^'^  ""/''  r"'^  ""«  r--i"-i  that  conhl 
be  hred.  Of  one  hundred  well  men  who  had  ironc  into 

action,  twenty-two  were  killed  and  sixty-one  wounded."- 
Now  8ixty.one  added  to  twenty-two,  make  eighty-three : 
^^^^-^-r^^^ira^,^  from  one  hundred,  itav^J  Zl 

Hrfightmg  two  hour,  and  a  half,  as  rapidhj  as  if  at  cxL 
cue,  kept  npasbnsk  a  fire,  as  ten  guns  and  one  nt;N- 
DUEo  MKN  !  1  his  Statement,  be  it  remembered,  came  from 
a  sea-oincer ! 

Let  us  try  him  again,     Capt.  Mackenzie,   it  will  be  re- 
membered,  contends  that  the  Niagara  was  not  in  close  ac 
t.on    until  Capt.  Perry  got  on  board.     It  is  r^roved  that  T.t. 
Webster  was  knocked  down    hfore  Cai,t.  Perry  reached 
the  brig.     In  a  note,  page  43.  vol.  2,  Capt.  Mackenzie  says 
--    Acting  Sa,  mg-master  Webster,  of  the  Niagara,  testi- 
hed,  before  a  C  ourt  of  Inquiry  on   Capt.  Elliot!  iu   1815 
two  men  were  killed  from   his  division,  and   a  number    of 
men  wounded  on  board  before  he  went  below.     This  took 
place  before    Capt.  Perry  boarded  the  Niagara,  at  which 
time  Mr.  Webster  was  below,  though  he  signed   the  letter 
stating  what  Capt.  Perry  said  at  that  time  tS  Capt.  Elliott. 
Mr.  Webster  was  unquestionably  mistaken.     Thouffh 
he    was    himself  carried  below   stunned  by  a  hammock, 
WAD,  or  falling  rigging,  though  thoroughly  stunned  for  the 
time,  he  recovered  and  returned  to  his  duty ;    he  was  not 
even  sufficiently  injured  to  be  borne  on  thelistof  the  slicrht- 
b;  wourded.   1  here  were  but  two  killed  in  all  on  board^'the 
Niagara    luring  the  action;  and  the  Surgeon  who    made 
out  the  list  ot  killed  and  wounded,  and  attended  to  curing 
lie  latter,  ascertained  personally  from  them,  that  only  two 
had  been  wounded  before  Capt,  Perry  took  charge  of  the 
wnjr.     As  there  wppp  fw^nti7-tK..««  ^..*  ^c  c i    . 

vvho  were  wounded  after  he  came  on  board,  while  engag- 
ing the  whole  British  squadron  within  pistol  shot,  the  con- 
clusion seems  irrisistable,  that  the  only  two  killed  throu<rh- 
out  the  action  must   have  been  killed  after  she  came    to 


70 


IIATTLB    or    LAKE    ERIE. 


I*; 
I 


close  quartor».  Tlie  two  known  to  be  woinuli'd  nt  that 
time  may  htrw  1n'ni  suppantj  hi/  Mr,  Wehnter  dcad^  and 
been  the  two  cuncerniuir   viiicli  hu  te«lific(l. ** 

Tliirt  is  a  precious  pjirugtapli  !  It  in  an  epitome  of  the 
Mackenzie,  U8  a  hisuriiin,  a  logician, and  u  poet !  In  the 
firnt  place  lie  reastuia  on  Mr.  Webat^'r's  hurt,  as  if  it  might 
have  conn;  from  ixwad^  (any  thing  but  u  .shot,)  while  I 
insists  that  (Japt.  Klliott  was  not  in  closic  action  !  Then  I 
thrown  out  an  inninuation  that  Mr.  Webster  signed  a  \y, 
per  of  which  he  couhl  not  know  thi  contents  to  be  true,  as 
the  event  occurred  on  deck,  and  x\Ir.  Wrhster  wa>  beh)w, 
at  the  time.  This  is  one  of  the  *  points*  on  that  ^ide  of  the 
question.  15ut,  any  thing  may  be  made  a  point,  if  testimony 
is  tortured  to  sustain  it.  The  testimony  in  question  was 
given  in  a  hitter  to  tlie  Secretary  of  tlie  Navy,  and  distinct- 
ly states  that  the  officers  who  sign  it,  give  their  *'  comhined 
observations,  on  the  occurrences  tu  which  it  relates.'*— 
*'  United'*  would  have  been  a  less  pretending  word,  per- 
haps, but  the  meaning  is  clear  enough.  It  simply  says  we 
put  all  our  observations  together  for  your  information,  one 
having  seen  or  heard  this,  another  that,  and  all  some 
things.  This  is  the  sinqde,  true  and  just  answer  to  all 
these  cavillings ;  cavillings  which  even  find  their  way  into 
Capt.  Perry's  charges.  80  obvious  was  the  truth,  in  this 
matter,  that  the  intelligent  council  employed  against  me  in 
the  Stone  arbitration,  <iisdained  to  resort  to  so  shallow  an 
argument.  Next  comes  the  proposition  in  arithmetic,  that, 
as  two  only  were  wounded,  while  Capt.  Elliott  was  on 
board,  and  twenty-three  while  Capt.  Perry  was  on  board, 
why  the  two  slain  must,  by  arithmatical  inference,  have 
been  killed  among  the  greater  number  wounded.  As  two 
wounded  are  to  twenty-three,  so  are  two  dead  men  to  Capt. 
Perry  !  Well,  let  this  be  so,  and  carry  out  the  principle. 
The  Porcupine,  according  to  Capt.  Mackenzie,  himself, 
bad  two  njen  killed,  while  no  one  is  reported  as  wounded. 
Ah  !  but  "  this  must  be  a  mistake.'*  Two  dead  men  log- 
ically infer  twentv-two  wounded  men  :  reasoninff  back- 
ward,  therefore,  and  a  la  Mackenzie,  the  Scorpion*s  report 
musthawe  its  stinir  wantinjy.  Then  the  two  men  Mr.  Web- 
ster  doubtless  thought  dead,  since  he  sicears  they  wert 
dead,  may  have  come  to  life  again,  and  he  know  nothing 


BATTLE   or    LiKF    ERIE 


77 


nt   that 
1(1  i  and 

!  of  the 
III  the 
it  might 
liilc  he 
['hen  h' 
;(l  n  pu- 
tnic,  ns 
«  biflow, 
e  ofthc 
^tiiiioiiy 
on  was 
iintinct- 
nnliined 

ltC'8.'*— 

rd,  por- 
snys  we 
on, one 
II  some 
r  to  all 
ay  into 
» in  thi» 
it  me  in 
How  an 
ic,  that, 
kvas  on 
board, 
:e,  hjive 
As  two 
0  Capt. 
inciple. 
limself, 
lunded. 
en  loff- 

3  report 
.  Web- 
sy  were 
nothing 


about  It !  They  may  not,  nlso.  As  thifl  was  Mr.  Webstor'i 
Um  buttle,  the  men  btl<w^r,|  to  his  own  diviMion,  and  th« 
names  ot  jii^^it  two  men  kilhd  in  a  ship  would  be  very  like. 

ble  Mr.  Wtbsler  would  know  whether  bin  two  dead  men 
had  been  renuscif-.ted.  or  not.  Capt.  Mackenzie  is  u  reir- 
ujar  reMurre<*tionist ! 

Did  ever  hu>  lan  being  concoct  before  such  i  paragraph, 
to  meet  the  ph.iii  matter-of-fact  oath  of  a  respectable  man, 
who  m^ht  lux  I  probably  did  know  what  he  was  about  f 
liid   Capt.  Hack,  iizie  ever    reason  in  this    manner    on    a 

grave  occasion  ?-^rf  ho  did.  no  one  need  I- surprised    at 
what  has  happened. 

6th.  'He  has  nanifested  an  indifference  to  justice, 
whieli  18  discreditable  to  any  writer,  and  which  ippro  iches 
an  in.hftV-ence  to  th».  truth.'  One  stron-  instance,  must 
suffice  for  r'lis  head,  though  many  might  bi  given. 

Jt  has  been  said  iiat  Capt.  Mackenzie  gives  thetesrimo 
iiy  ol  only  one  side.  IMiis,  in  a  man  who  proposes  to  write 
history  IS  bad  enough  of  itself,  i.ut  Capt.  Mackenzie    has 
himself  shown  that  his  casp  Is  much  worse.       Among   the 
witnesses  whom  he  c'tes,  is  a  Lt.  Forrest  of  the  Lawrence. 

^?iir  ^^^  ^"'    '***''  especially  comments  on  the  testimo- 
ny of  Mr.  Forrest.  A  conversati  >n  is  given  which  is  said  to 
have  taken  place  between  (apt.  Perry  and  M     Forrest,  the 
drift  of  which  was  to  show  what  was    thougl     oi    Captain 
Elliott  s  conduct  during  the  battle.     This  c-      ersation  as- 
•  mes  that  Elliott  was  not  in  close  artion  wlicii  Perry    got 
into  the  boat.     It  '-outradicts  Capt.  Ferry's  official  report 
it  contradicts  Met-  en.  Turner,  of  the    Caledonia,  Packett, 
oj  the  Ariel,  Coriklin,  o:    the  Tigr  ss,  and  all  the   officers 
ot  the  Niagara  who  have  testified,  Dr.  Bi.rton   excepted, 
yho,  being  below,  could  noi  know  the  posit. uns  of  the  brigs. 
Still  Capt.  Mackenzie  quotes  th'"^  conversation,  as  if  it  were 
gospel.     It  probably  ni   er  occurred. 

In  a  word,  Mr.  Forrest,  in  this  Utter,  is  one  of  the  most 
decided  of  all  the  witnesses  against  Cnjit.  Elliott.  Hl  sav« 
—"  i  was  on  deck  from  d  ly-light  till  af*«r  the  battle  was 
over  ;  and  I  believed  at  the  time,  and  do  still  most  solemn- 
ly teheve,  that  Capt.  Jesse  D.  Elliott  was  influenced  either 
by  cowardice,   and  fear  prevented  hitn  from  closir 


•\ 


^* 


with 


78 


MATTLE   or    LAKB    ClirC. 


tht  ,r«f«,y,or  Uutt  hr  whhtd  to  tacrijict  the  Lawrenci,  antt 
tnen  claim  the  virtory  for  himself:' 

Beforo  I  procieil  fiinlii.r,  I  will  my  horr,  tlitit  I 
clo  not  heficvD  >lr.  rorri-m  ever  wrote  tliiit  utiiteiice;  tlioui/li 
1  pronume  lie  put  liii  ntiinc  to  it.  h  Iiiin  u  jrrnin,iiatical 
precmiofi  tlwir  not  on.-  Muilor  in  a  tlioiiHund  viuiilil  have  ob- 
Horved— scarcely  one  landsman.  It  im  e(.rrert  in  a  (loint  of 
^mnmiaticul  conHtriiclion.on  wliicli  even  many  i^oocl  writer* 
1*1  i:...."'*^  men  wonhl  have  Haid  '•  That  rither  iUx\,\.  J,.MHif 
U.  Llliott  was  innueneed"— inntead  of  "was  inlhienced 
either  by,"  dtc.  Mr.  Forrest  wm  not  the  man,  in  my 
judgment,  to  know  or  understand  the  di«tinction.  Still,  f 
adniit,  it  iH  all  eorijeeture,  and,  if  true,  merely  shows  he  had 
a  flapper  to  help  him  alon^r. 

But  thi»  i«  a  trifle,  whether  trne  or  not,  as  compared    to 
what  18  to  follow.     Mr.  Torrest  nayH,  in  another  part  of  Imn 
letter— "After  the  commencement  of  the  action,  Captain 
blliott,  in  the  Niagara,  instead  of  keeping  on  with  ua,  ami 
tuiarttgin,^  his  opponent  as  directed,  [Hit  his  helm  down  and 
sheered  to  tcmdward  of  the  Lawrence,  leaving  the  Lawrence 
exposed  to  the  tire  of  the  enemy's   two  largest  ves.sels."— 
This  testimony  of  Mr.  Forrest's  is  given  in  a  letter, /A«<  « 
not  sworn  to,  and  which  is  dated  January  21)th,  1821.  The 
battle  having  been  fought  September  10th,  I8l.'j,  it  follows 
that  this  letter  was  written  seven  years,  four  months    and 
iiincteeen  daytj  after  the  events  to  which  it  alludes.     Now 
this  same  Mr.  Forrest  was  a  witness  before  the  Court  of  In- 
quiry, so  often  mentioned.     There  he  was  under  oath.  His 
examination  took   place  Aprtl  26th,  1815,  or  one   year, 
seven  months  and   sixteen  day.  after  the  events.     As  be- 
tween these  two  bits  of  evidence,  then,  no  one  can  hesitate 
alwut  saying  which  is  entitled   to  be  preferred  ;  one   was 
under  oath,  the  other  not — one  is  broadly  contradicted  by 
a  great  mass  of  testimony  coming  from  the  best   witnesses 
the  case  aftbrds,  the  other  is  much  less  so,  though  impugn- 
ed ;  one   is  given  more  than  seven  years  after  the  eve'nt, 
the  other  less  than  two. 

Before  the  Court  of  Tnnniri/  tli*»  fwn  A%ii^i.r;..».  „.. *:-^- 

were  put  to  Mr.  Forrest,  who  returned  the  answers  liere 
given. 


IVi 


lUTTLK   OF    LAKK    K,Hli, 


7D 


coining  a  hrnv«  iind  iii(>rit 


Aiigivtr. — •*  So  far  as  / 


orioua  orlicer  in  tliut  action  I 


ry  tlnu^  ho. 


^rt/f',  /  heliere  he  diti,^* 


Quc-Htio...--  I>„1  tiM,  <;ali.<l<,nia  unci  Luwrrnce.  «^  a/i// 
/^^Y— i.'  ff^  -'--',  »H.ar  np  and  run  cJ<,w«  on  la  eTc"^ 
in),  liMivuig  thu  Nnifl^Hm  Ntunding  on  I" 

Annvvor.— "  /1/if.r  the  action  commenced  the  Niagara 
was  itandin^  directly  after  i«."  ^^ia^aia 

!>[<»%  Iier«  are  two  inntiincc*  in  which  Mr.  Forr«'«t  flatlv 

contrachctH  h.n.^elf.      In   the  letter   he  eaye   l^    V^X 

van  u  tnutor  or  «  cowani,  in  the  «worn   tLti.non;   he    e- 

»uve«  he  .ehaved  l.ke  u  'M.rave  an<l  nieritorion"  jHcr  "1 

windward  ,     u.  the  sworn  tcHtunony  h«  ,ny^  ju«t  the  con- 

Mr.   ForrcHt.  1  understand,  was  a  n.an  of  very   feehic 

>i  iffura,  and  It  may  he  some  excuse  for  him,  that  he  di<l 
not  thoroughly  comprehend  what  he  was  ahout.  But  this 
does  not  excuse  Capt.  Mackenzie.  This  gentlen.a.,  par' 
ades  hefore  the  world  i\x^  letter  of  Mr.  Forrest  while  he 
suppresses  the  testimony  before    the  Court   of  Liulry!^ 

Jne'side     IM  "''  "'"."  "''V'^  puhhshinp  the  testimoiry  of 
one  side— It  is  presenting  that  point  of  the  testimony  of  a 

ournl",  'V'""'''  "''•'"''  r'''  *"'*'  ^^'»i»^-  Mackenzie's 
purpose,  and  suppressing  that  which  flatly    contradicts  it 

dwelling  on  the  imperfect  evidence,  and  concealing  the 
per  ect ;  and  nil  coming  from  the  same  witness  '         ^ 

But,  Capt.  Mackenzie,  those  who  have  been  sinirini.  his 
praises  ior  the  last  six  months,  will  prohnhiy  say,  L;  not 
Imve    know.i   of  the  testimony  of  Mr.  For/est  Lfore  Ihe 

x\  X  Vi*^""^-  ^''"^  '^  possible,  though  far  from 
probable.  If  ignorant,  this  would  remove  the  taint  which 
would  otherwise  rest  on  him  !  Certainly.  Let  us  look 
niio  tne  racts. 

Capt.  Mackenzie  is  not  a  reserved  writer.     111^  bnob  ;. 
Juii  of  truths,  or  atrocious  calumnies  on  Capt.  Elliott   nor 
19  It  very   guarded  as  to  its  censures  on  me.     That  Capt 
lU  lott  IS,  in  some  instances  calumniated,  I  have  proved  • 
1  Uimk  he  is  in  others,  about  which  I  have  said  nothing  • 


^tA,£^ 


ao 


HATTLK    OF    LAKE    ERIE. 


It  IS  luc^l.Iy  prolmhie  ho.  is,  iu    most  of  Capt.  Mackenzie's 
accusawons  it  not  iu  alJ.      Wl.or,  a  ,na„  writes  accusutions 
lie  iH  bnuiui  to  use  a  proper  degree  of  caution.     J\ow.  the 
record  ot  the  Court  of  Inquiry  has  been  often  printed-it  is 
to  he  tound  at  the  Navy    I)epartn.(Mit,  also,  whence  I  oh- 
aine<l  a  c«M|til.ed  copy,     A  biography  of  Capt.  Elhott  has 
oeen  published,  which  Capt.  Mackenzie  must  have   read, 
a3  he  speaks  ot  it  r^hn,     lie  calls  it  an  auto-lno^rraphy,  as 
it  C,apt.  Elhott  had  ,,repared  it  himself.      Well. In  the  ap- 
pendix t(,  this   bionrniphy  „f  Elliott  is  to  be  found  nearly 
all  the  testimony  in  the  dilferent  controversies;  that  aLrainsL 
a.    well  as  that  M  Con..  Elliott.     In  this  particuhu-,  at 
oftst,  the  book  IS  honest.     The  evidence  is  not  only  Lnven, 
but,  so  nu-  as  I  can  discover,  fairly  given.     In  his  appendix 
Oapt.  Mackenzie  gives  the  testimony  of  onlv  his  own  side 
hlhnir  the  space,  that  might  better  have  been  lilled  with  the 
evidence  ot  Com.  Elliott,  with  a  cop,,  of  the  charges  under 
which ^.omlMiott  was  tried  in  i^A^-    twenty.t^yo  years 
Pen-,^  5  death,  and  on  matters  noivise  connected  with 

Among  other  things  alleged  against  mc,  Capt.  Macken^ 
zie,  page  4-2,  vol.  2,  in  speaking  of  the  Biography  of  Com. 
Elliott,  says-"  Such  is  a  s,,ecimen  of  a  work,  put  forth, 
like  some  lewd  jest  book,  or  collection  of  indecent  songs 
without  the  name  of  author,  publisher,  or  even  printer  fa 
work  which    has    nevertheless   been    freely  used  by  Mr 
s3 '>'"  construct^ing  the  Naval   History  of  the  United 
J^tates.        fehortly  after  the  appearance  of  the  life  of  Perrv 
I  addressed  a  letter  to  the  Evening  l>ost,  pointing  out  some 
of  the  weak  spots  in  the  work,  en  attendant,  and  in  refer- 
ence   to  this   particular  passage  I  tell  Capt.  Mackenzie 
that  he   is  mistaken  ;  that  I  took  nothing  from  the  text  of 
that  work.     It  was  true,  I  used  the  work  on  account  of  the 
appendix,  which  contained  ail  the  testimony  as  mentioned, 
and  llound  it  convenient  as  a  book  of  reference      I  re- 
gretted to  add,  that,   had   Capt  Mackenzie's  book  earlier 
appeared,  I  should  have  rell-rred  to  its  pages,  in  vain,  with 
tne  same  object,    inasmuch   as  it  contains  thv  />«.w^«..  ^^ 
07Uy  one  side      I  then  distinctly  showed  the  effect  oFtlds 
one-sided  evidenco  by  citing  as  an  instance  the  case  of  Mr. 
k  orrest.     Still  1  did  not  accuse  Capt.  Mackenzie  of  havino- 


DATTLE    OP    LAKE    ERIE. 


81 


tleliLemtcIy  suppressed  Mr.  Forrest's  testimony  before  the 
Court  ot  Inquiry.  On  this  head,  I  said  :  "  Mr.  Mackenzie 
lius  not  laid  hetore  the  world  the  hitter  lestiniony  (the  evi- 
dence l)etore  the  Court  oFrn<p,iry.)  Whether  he  ever  snw 
It  or  not,  I  shall  not  pretend  to  say;  and  this  merely  be- 
cause 1  do  not  know.  I[ad  he  observed  the  same  reserve 
as  respects  me,  his  work,  I  rannot  but  think,  would  have 
been  written  in  bc^tter  taste,  and  I  am  certain  it  would  have 
been  tar  more  accurate." 

This  letter  extracted  an  answer  from  Capt.  Mackenzie, 
which  appeared  in  the  F.veiiin«r  l»„st  of  April  7th,  1841 
my  letter  havinn;  appeared  March  2()th,  of  the  same  year! 
In  answer  to  what  1  said  about  the  Forrest  testimony,  Mr. 
Mackenzie  replies—"  Mr.  Cooper  charges  me,  in  conclu- 
sion, with  having  published  in  the  appendix  of  my  work, 
only  the  documents  on  one  side,  in  the  controversy  between 
1  erry  and  Capt.  Elliott.  In  the  body  of  the  work  I  stated 
and  commented  on  the  material  evidence  on  the  other  side, 

INCLUDING    WHAT    WAS     ADDUCKD     UEPORE     THE    CoURT    OP 

Inquiry.  I  published  in  the  appendix  the  justificatory 
pieces  upon  which  I  h.ad  founded  my  account  of  the  Battle 
of  Lake  Erie.  I  miVht  have  added  others  bearino-  ma- 
terially on  the  question— such  as  the  reports  of  Capt?  Bar 
clay  and  his  first  lieutenant,  and  the  finding  of  the  Court 
martial  on  the  British  officers,  (it  never  found  any  thino-of 
the  sort  meant,)  but  I  believed  that  I  had  already  published 
enough,  even  making  deduction,  as  I  now  do,  for  the  dis- 
crepant  statement  of  one  of  the  witnesses  pointed  out  by 
Mr.  Cooper,  to  justify  all  my  statements,  and  carry  con- 
viction to  every  u  n prejudiced  mind,"  &c.  <fec. 

Here,  then,  is  Capt.  Mackenzie's  plea  to  my  declaration 
in  the  case  of  Mr.  Forrest.  It  will  be  seen  he  does  not 
plead  the  ignorance,  for  which  I  had  left  an  opening  in  my 
letter.  On  the  contrary,  he  had  commented  on  the  testi- 
mony before  the  Court  of  Inquiry,  in  the  body  of  the  work, 
though   he  is  now  willing  to  withdraw   Mr.  Forrest,   as  a 

witness  :    that  is.  wlipn   hn  ia  pvnoaisrl    onA  Ic  „^  I ^-.- 

able.  Among  lawyers  the  omission  to  plead  ignorance, 
would  be  taken  as  an  admission  that  he  knew  of  the  ex- 
istence  of  the  suppressed  testimony. 

Let  us  sum  up  the  facts,  and  come  to  a  judgment.     Capt. 


82 


UATTI.E    OP     LAKE     ERIE. 


i''K    T 

If  H 


h^ 


m 


Mackenzie  professes  to  write  history.     I.i  this  history  he 
strongly  cnrninates  an  officer,  who  was  an  actor  in  a  par- 
ticular battle.     He   furnishes  the  evidence    hy  which  he 
justities   his  history,  and  his  criminations.     Not  satisfied 
with  suppressing  the  eviddiice  of  one  whole  side,  he  even 
suppresses  the  evidence  of  one  of  his  own  witnesses,  when 
It   makes    against  himself;  producing   that  portion  only 
which  sustains  his  theory,  though  less  entitled  to  respect 
than  that  he  suppressed.     lie  is   told  of  this  fault,  by  one 
who   allows   it  may  have  proceeded   from  ignorance ;  he 
does  not  plead   ignorance  in  his   defence,    but  thinks  the 
point  IS  disposed  of  because  he  had  commented  on  the  sup- 
pressed testimony  in  the  body  of  his  work. 

Now  what  sort  of  commentary  in  the  body  of  the  work, 

would  be  a   justification    for  publishing  the   letter  of  Mr 

*  orrest,  and  suppressing   the  testimony  before  the  Court 

ot  inquiry  ?     Clearly   none  but  such  as  would  altogether 

explain  away  the  last,  leaving  to  the  first  its  complete  au- 

hority.    When  Capt.  Mackenzie  tells  the  public,  in  answer 

to  a  statement  as  distinct  as  that  I  had  made  in  the  Eve- 

mng  Fost   that  he  had  commented  on  the   testimony  before 

lt\f        'f  ^^Q^iry,  the   public  had  a  right  to  suppose 

that  fc^iese  comments  justified  his  using  the  letter,  and  sup- 

pressing  the   sworn  evide  ice.     It  remains,  therefore,  to 

ascertain  how  far  this  is  true,  or  untrue. 

Capt.    Mackenzie    incidentally   mentions    the   court  of 
Iblo  in  two  or  three  places  in  his  book,  without  touching 
on  the  character  of  the  evidence,  however.     The  last  is 
done,  only  at  page  159,  vol.  2d,  where  the  followinir  pas- 
sage  IS  to  be  found  ;  viz.—  ^  ^ 

r.'li"^f''^'-^®^^'  ^.^^"  ^^^^^  *^«  ^^^^  of  this  letter,  a 
nZv  l"?"'?'"'''"'"''^"^^^'*"'^^  members,  was  held  in 
lyew  York  for  the  purpose  of  investigating  the  losses  of  the 
President,  Frolic  and  Rattlesnake.  Capt^EUiott  being  at 
the  time  m  New  York,  in  command  of  the  sloop  Ontario 
applied  to  the  Navy  Department  to  instruct  thfs  cc?urt  to 
inquire  into  the  conduct  of  the  Niagara  while  under  his 
command  in  the    battle    on  L^^.^  Pn.   „p,.i  ,.,u^.u       " 

i^lT/r"r?'f  '^  ''  ""^^^  ^^^^^'"  as  Staled  irth^find^ 
ingof  the  British  court-martial  on  Com.  Barclay.  The 
Secretary  immediately  instructed  the  court,  that  ii  having 


BATTLE    OP    LAKE    ERIE. 


83 


been  stated  to  him  that,  by  the  proceedings  of  a   Court  of 
Inquiry  in  Great  Britain,  the  conduct  of  Capt  Elliott  had 
been  "misrepresented,"  justice  to  the  reputation  of  Capt. 
Elhott  and  to  the  navy  of  the  United  States   required   that 
a  true    statement    of  the   facts  in   relation   to  his  conduct 
on  that  occasion  shoidd  be  exhibited  to  the   world.     The 
court  was  therefore  directed  to  inquire  into   the  same,  as- 
certain the  part  he  had  sustained  during  the  action,  and 
report  to  the  Department.     The   court   immediately  pro- 
ceeded to  the  examination  of  seven  witnesses,  five  of  whom 
belonged  to  the  Niagara,  while  two  of  the  Lawrence's  offi- 
cers were  introduced  to  give  a  color  of  impartialiti/  to  the 
transactions.     The    evidence  op   the  minority  was,  of 
COURSE  BORNE   DOWN,  and  the  court  came  to  the  high/?/ 
patriotic  conclusion  that,  instead  op  the  Niagara  making 
AWAY  PROM  THE  QuEEN  Charlotte,  the  Queen  Charlotte 
bore  off  from  the  fire  of  the  Niagara.     It  gave  no  reason, 
however,  why  the  Niagara  did  not  follow  her.     The  court 
was  begun  and    ended  with  the  utmost  celerity.     In  the 
investigation  of  the  case,  neither  the  commanding  officer  on 
the   occasion,   nor  any  of  the  commanders  of  the  small 
vessels,  were  summoned  to  give  their  evidence." 

This  is  all  Capt.  Mackenzie  says  of  the  Court  of  Inquiry. 
These  are  his  comments  !  First,  then,  as  to  Mr.  Forrest.* 
Do  the  comments  tell  the  reader  that,  Mr.  Forrest,  before 
this  court,  swore  directly  contrary  to  the  most  material 
part  of  that  evidence  of  his  which  Capt.  Mackenzie  has 
paraded  before  the  world,  in  his  book  !  So  far  from  this, 
it  leaves  the  reader  to  suppose  that  the  evidence  of  the 
two  officers  of  the  Lawrence,  of  whom  Mr.  Forrest  was 
one,  was  altogether  in  favor  of  his  tiicory,  btit  was  borne 
down  hi/  the  evidence  of  the  five  witnesses  of  the  Niagara. 
I  hope  those  persons  who  are  ready  to  canonize  Capt. 
Mackenzie  as  a  saint,  without  waiting  the  customary 
century,  will  bear  this  whole  matter  in  mind,  To  me,  I 
confess  it  fully  sustains  the  charges  T  have  given  as  the  5th. 
But,  bad  as  Ca[)t.  Mackenzie  has  left  this  mnner-.  on  its 
face,  it  is  much  worse  when  we  come  to  look  further  into 
it.  By  this  statement  the  muirt  instead  of  finding  "  #A«/l 
the  Niagara  was  making  away  from  the  Queen  Cmr  lotted' 
found    tpiite  the   contrary.     Cnpf.    Mnckeuif.ie  gives  the 


3 


64 


BATTLE    OP    LAKE    ERIK. 


f 


reader  to  suppoan  that  Imd  not  the  testimony  of  the  two, 
been  »  borne  down'  by  that  of  the  five,  the  result  would  have 
been  different.  The  wliole  sentence  nieuns  this,  or  it  ineunH 
notliing.  Now,  what  do  these  two  officers,  themselves, 
say,  on  this  subject?  Mr.  Forrest  was  asked  as  follows, 
and  answered  us  folh»ws  : 

Question.--"/JiV/  the  Niagara  attempt  to  make  of  from 
the  British  fleet,  at  any  time  during  the  action?'' 

Answer. — "No." 

To  Mr.  Varnall  tlic  same  question  was  put,and  the  same 
answer  ^iven. 

Question.—"  Did  the  Niaorara,  at  any  time  during  the 
action,  attempt  to  make  off  from  the  liritish  fleet?" 

Answer. — "No." 

Ill  the  name  of  common    honesty,  is  not  this  sufficient 
to  characterize  Capt.  (Vlackenzie's  book  ?     Tlien,  he  com- 
ments  *'  on  the  material  evidence  on  the  other  side,"  exclu- 
srvely  of  that  bf  ibre  the  Court  of  Inquiry  !     Does  he/— 
Where  f— Wlien  ?— How  ?  As  a  general  and  just  comment 
on  the  objection  of  having  substantially  suppreijsed  the  evi- 
dence  against  his  dieory,  J  am  constrained  to  say,  that  the 
fact  is  otherwise.     Cajjt   Mackenzie's  book   contains  no 
allusion,  whatever,  to  most  and  the  best  evidence  against 
him,   ahhough  he    occasionally  introduces  a   little  of  the 
testimony,  usually,  if  not  invariably,  to  insinuate  its  worth- 
lessncss,  rather  than  to  prove  it.     Jle  even  suppresses  Capt. 
Ferry  s   official    report  of  the   battle,   quoting  from  it  in 
scraps,as  it  suited  his  own  purposes.  He  says,  page  280,vol. 
I,  •♦  rhe  opinion  was  general  m  the  squadron  that  Capt  El- 
Itott  had  either  been  actuated  by  cowardice,  or  by  a  treach- 
erous desire  to   see  the    Lawrence   overpowered  and   her 
commander  slain,  and  that   he  might  take  his  station,  and 
by  winning  the  victory,  become  the  hero  of  the  day."     In 
a  note,  he  refers  the  reader  to  the  affidavits  at  the  end  of 
the  w|)rlf,  tg  prove  this  cool  assertion.     It  is  true  this  is 
stated  in  six  of  these  eight  affidavits,  but  the  effect  is  only 
to  lessen  the  respect  for  the  testimony,    as   the  rebutting 
evidence  triumphantly  disproves  the  fact.    About  this  ther^ 
can  be  no  dispute.     When  more  wiriiesses  testify  in  favor 

igainst 


say  he  is  "  generally  condemned."    Th 


}  an  absurdity  t 
is  is  a  vulgar  failin 


the  two, 
uJd  have 
it  ineunM 
msclves, 
follows, 


lie  same 
ing  the 


efficient 
le  com- 
*  exclu- 
3  Ije  / — 
>mment 
the  evi- 
hat  the 
uns  no 
ag-ninsc 
of  the 
worth- 
s  Capt. 
m  it  in 
I80,vol. 
ipt  El- 
treach- 
id   her 
>n,  and 
"     In 
end  of 
this  is 
s  only 
cutting 
s  thorn 
[favor 
dity  to 
failing 


BATTLE   OP   LAKf.   Erie.  §5 

•^"wiirdL'crt'k''"^  """""■^'^  'l.e  WI...I.  earth. 

FXAMfNATION  OOMPOSFS  A  PART  ?  ""Uf^sr  S 

.ifc  c,,„,  Eiii.,,™r,Hi","iEr£,,f c::,  T' 

f  ^n.  f    n  .  ^^^'^^''^I'l  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Nnw 

poses  .,f  the  point  a,  m!ws-'  "Thf  e l',  ^"'='''^"^"'  <•"■ 

a  lei  nis  Htum  Id  the  Lawrence,  and  set  down  by  him   at 
such  absurd  misrepresentations."  s>uoiecc  ot 

Tins  is  commenting  on  evidence,  forsooth  '      Mr  ffnm 
bleton's  unsworn  account  if  Jn.l  J  i  •;/       '      •^'*^- ^ani- 
/^^^/    o        »      i  "t^cuunr,  II  indeed  it  6c   ns   accmmf   r.f 
Capt  Pcrn/s   declaration,  is  to  be  concl».ivp7«         •' 
the  sworn  testimony  of  inc  ifferent  rwdJ.  »     iv     ."^^^'"'^ 
the  parade  about  stL..rd  and  larb^a  ^^iLs^^^^^^^^^^^ 
fc  must  b.  stuck  close  in  .vith  the  gunrat  quart    s^ 
oi,  as  ir  a  human  voice  could  not  be  heard  across  thpHpfi; 

category  allmll:^"^"^"^'   "^''''^  '^  ^^  "^  ^^^ 

nffi?V*'-  "^^-^  P"".^^'  Capt.  Mackenzie  says-«TheseW 
officers  ;o.,e  ,n  giving  the  words  uttered  respectiyelybv 

ra  lue  IMagaia.      It  is  apropos  of  this,  that  he  goes  on 


^ll 


(^ 


IJATTM?    OP    tAKE    FRIff, 


to  rcnsoi.  about  tlie  inrlK>anl  and  Htnrhojinl  «i(lc3,  &c.  Sow 
tlie  five  oflicrrs  in  <nieMtioii  did  no  such  tliinjf,  us  I  have 
already  shown  by  a  (juotation  from  their  letter.  They  gave 
tlieir  '*  combined  observations,"  meani»^«r,  that  what  wa» 
seen  or  heard  by  them  all,  should  be  presented  to  the  Sec- 
retary ill  a  »ingle  letter.  This  in  commenting  on  the  testi- 
mony I 

But  I  must  conclude.  On!y  one  more  instance  ahall  Imj 
furnished  to  prove  Capt  Mackenzie's  inddference  to  the 
truth.  At  page  4*2,  vol.  3,  ite  says — "  He  (Mr.  Cooper) 
has  attempted  to  show  that,  if  there  was  any  merit  in  this 
act,  (the  act  of  Perry,  in  passing  from  the  Lawrence  to  the 
Niagara,)  Capt.  Flliott  exhibiteti  it  in  a  greater  degree." — 
This  is  as  cooly  stated,  as  if  it  were  true.  The  note,  »n 
which  my  remarks  are  madc,Hatly  contradicts  it.  Speaking 
of  the  mere  act  of  passing;  in  the  hoat^  it  says — "  But  this 
was  the  least  of  Perry's  merits."  It  adds  a  little  lower 
down — ''Capt.  Perry's  merit  was  an  indomitable  resolution 
not  to  be  conquered,  and  the  nmnner  in  which  he  sought 
new  modes  of  victory,  when  the  old  ones  failed  him.  The 
position  taken  by  the  Niagara,  at  the  close  of  the  affair, 
(when  Elliott  had  left  her,)  the  fact,  that  he  sought  the  best 
means  of  repairing  his  loss,  and  the  motive  with  which  he 
passed  from  ves.sel  to  vessel,  constitute  his  claims  to  admi- 
ration." Capt.  Mackenzie's  untrue  and  garbled  statement, 
on  this  head,  compells  me  to  tell  him  he  has  not  acted  like 
a  man  of  good  faith,  in  this  particular.  It  is  so  impossible 
for  any  man  to  read  my  note,  and  not  see  what  it  "  at- 
tempts''' to  show,  that  I  am  almost  induced  to  believe  Capt. 
Mackenzie  has  only  read  Dr.  Dner's  pretended  extract 
from  it. 

I  could  write  pages  on  pages  more  to  show  the  utter 
worthlessness  of  this  book,  in  all  that  relates  to  the  battle 
of  Lake  Erie.  It  does  not  give  the  force  correctly,  and  it 
is  faulty  throughout.  By  assuming  that  Capt.  Elliott  did 
not  come  into  close  action  at  all,  it  goes  tar  beyond  the 
rnajority  of  even  the  Perry  witnesses,  and  contradicts  Perry 


fact  on  Messrs.  Yarnall,  Forrest  and  Taylor,  of  the  Law- 
rence, who  agree  in  saying,  that  when  Capt.  Perry  let\  the 
Lawrence,  the  Niagara  was  from  a  quarter  to  half  a  mile 


MATTLt;   OP    LAKE    EniE.  ^7 

«n  llicir  wentlHT  U-m,,  or  l.o,v.     Fro,,,  tl.i.  Ii.,t  Mr   Forr,.st 

wit  lout  millions  knowing  any  tiling  about  it.     At  m,y  rnto 
or   lisonc  fuct-and  lie  lia.,„ia,lc  it  the  distinrtivc  foe  in 

Me  r. '?~:,  r*  r-i!'  ',•*  *■""'  '"'"^'''" «« win t; 

Messrs"  Perrv     1  '^n"'/"  '"''"'"  '"'»•  «'  "PPO'cJ  to 

"icssis.  1  errj",  lurnci-,  Packrtt,  Conklin.    neither  ,f  .1,. 

NiHgarn,  and  Messrs.  Smith,  Magrath,  Edwards   Webster 

"e^rre^r^l-'   f »"'='"-'-y.  Tatem?  Adamf  ami 
utrry  every   one  of    whom  contradict,   in  some  form  o. 
other,  this  iiartieular  fact,  and  severai  in  ■Various  ways  red 
b-,  .nculently,  or  by  unavoidable  implication      f>e„   s'mi 

"i[ji^„r,'.'"''''  """  *^-'''"-  »f»«''«n'-i«  quotes,  and     ho  a  e 
Mlent ,  n  tlie  point,  contradict  his  fact  by  m plication    IMins 
Mr.  Clmmplm,  where  he  speaks  of  the  Niagaras  pas  imJ 

Cl  pI'T;*  '""  "'T  "'"'^^"^  shoPt  time'  befLr! 
ran^d  2^1  1^.',"'%°"  ^""^  "^  ''''  ("'«  Niagara)  she 
lZ!!rf  •  "  """  Lawrence,  (where  Mr.  Chanii.lii  was 
1 1  self  m  command  of  the  Scorpion,)  and  to  w  iidward 
ot  her,  bringing  the  Commodore's  ship  between  iJr  and  Ti 

ii^ely  to^e  used  of  a  vere,  lb:;  Jt^r^  ml  "0"?^,!! 
*vaid .     Had  such  been  the  fact,  it  «tril....  .v,«  tlt-  oi I" 

crn'ina::"ra:r'Fr"'"=  'T^' '" '^'«^  ''• ' «« ^^'^ 

Miminate  Capt.  Elhott,  and  it  won  d  have  been  a  miirh 
.nore  serious  charge  to  have  said  -you  were  awav  offTir 
*>  .mle  to  windward.'  i„  lieu  of  merely  ra;in7'"'ou  ought 


88 


BATTLE    or    LAKC    ERFE. 


to  have  passed  inside,  instead  of  outside  the  Lawrence/ 
Nor  wouhl  IVIr.  Cliumphn  have  for^rotten  to  liave  tokl  the 
fiict,  had  Capt.  KMiott  passed  to  windward  oi'  Ins  own  ves- 
sel the  Scorpion,  which  Capt.  Mackenzie  athnits  was  in 
ch>8C  action  (Voni  the  heginning.  Unhjss  the  Scorpion  were 
a  good  deal  more  than  half  a  mile  to  windwanl  of  the  Law- 
rence, the  Niagara  could  jwt  have  heen,  without  g(»ing 
outside  oHicr.  Mr.  JJrownell,  of  the  Ariel,  the  other  ves- 
sel  ahead,  or  to  windward  of  the  Lawrence,  gives  suhstan- 
tially  the  same  evidence  as  Mr.  Chaniplin,  on  this  point. 
Ft  is,  indeed,  verbatim,  as  far  as  Mr.  Champlin  goes.  Mr. 
Packett,  who  commanded  the  Ariel,  says  distinctly  that 
the  Niagara  was  "steering  for  the  head  of  the  line  (evidently 
the  scene  of  action)  to  windwardof  the  Lawrence,"  but  not 
to  windward  of  himself  There  is  something  very  presu- 
ming in  a  writer's  insisting  on  a  fact  that  is  sustained  by 
ordy  two  witnesses,  and  which  is  denied  by  fourteen,  be- 
sides being  disproved  by  circumstances.  But  Capt.  Mac- 
kenzie has  a  trick  of  seeing  things  his  own  way. 

Capt.  Mackenzie  has  one  passage,  that,  coming  from  a 
seaman,  or  one  who  ought  to  be  a  seaman,  deserves  com- 
memoration. He  says— vol.  1,  page  250—- ♦»  Perry's  first 
order  on  board  the  Niagara  was  to  back  the  main-iop-sail, 
and  stop  her  from  running  out  of  the  action.  (It  seems  by 
this,  she  was  in  the  action,  at  all  events  ;)  his  next,  to  brail 
up  the  main-try-sail,  put  the  helm  up,  and  bear  down  be- 
fore the  wind,"  &c.  This  was  to  cut  the  line.  On  the 
next  page  he  adds— "The  helm  had  been  put  up  on  board 
the  Niagara,  sail  made,  and  the  signal  for  close  action  hove 
out  at  forty-five  minutes    after  two,  the  instant  Perry 

HAD  BOARDED  HKR." 

Now,  I  do  not  suppose  Capt.  Mackenzie  is  so  ignorant 
of  the  hornbook  of  his  profession,  as  to  believe  any  man, 
who  instantly  intended  to  bear  up,  would  begin  by  backing 
his  niain-top-sail ;  but  I  do  suppose  he  is  of  such  a  frame 
of  mind,  that  when  he  wishes  to  see  anj?  particular  thing, 
he  loses  sight  of  all  others.  The  simple  facts  are,  that  Capt* 
fjlliott  was  abeam  of  flip  w^iorht  n^  tha.  J^nnWai^  a^-^«   ...:*u 

in  musket  shot ;  (a  fact  which  I  had  forgotten  to  mention , 
is  proved  by  a  circumstance  concerning  which  there  can 
be  no  mistake;  Mr.  Cummings  having  been  wounded  by 


wrencc/ 
told  the 
)\vii  ves- 
I  WU8  in 
oil  were 
iie  Lavv- 
ijt  going 
:li(:r  ves- 
substan- 
8  point. 
ig.  Mr. 
tly  that 
vidcntly 
'but  not 
y  presu- 
lined  by 
!en,  be* 
)t.  Mac- 

f  from  a 
3S  com- 
y's  first 
top-saiJ, 
Bems  by 
to  brail 
ivvn  be- 
On  the 
n  board 
an  hove 
Perry 

^norant 
y  man, 
►acking 
I  frame 
•  thing, 
t  Capt. 
;,  with- 
3ntion, 
re  can 
ied  by 


BATTLE    OP    LAKE    ERIE. 

a  musket  ball,  in  the  main-top,  too,  about  this  time)  tho 
br.g   had  fair  way  on  her,  and  was   drawing  ahead  while 
he  two  captains  were  conversing  ;  as  soon  as  i'erry  found 
hnnself  alone,  he  perceived  thefact,  nnd.'backed  his  ton- 
sad.  to  keep  square  with   his  enemies ;  looking   about  It 
the  scene,  he  made   the  signal  for  closer  aclioni  waited  a 
ew  minutes,  as  the  schooners  were  closing  fast ;  then  up 
helm,  and  went  through  the  enemy's  line.     Whether  thi« 
ast  manoeuvre  was  determined  by  the  attempt  of  the  Enidish 
to  ware    and   their   getting  foul  of  each  other,  I  have  not 
been  able  to  ascertain.     If  so,  it  accounts  at  once  for  the 
time  of  the  movement      Capt.    Mackenzie's  own  account 
ol  the  time  contradicts  his  other  statements.     At  Sl>  min- 
utes  past  two,  Perry  got  into  the  boat.     He  had  a  man-of- 
war  s  cutter  and  six  men.     Under  the  circumstances  the 
boat    would  have  gone  the  pretended  half  mile  of  Cant 
Mackenzie,  certainly  in  five  minutes,  and  as  the  Niagara 
bore  up  at  45  minutes  past  2,  it  leaves  ten  for  Perry  to  be 
on  board,  before  he  ordered  the  change.     I  understand  the 
boat  did  pull  quite  a  quarter  of  a  mile  to  reach  the  Niagara, 
though  It  was  ahead,  instead  of  to-windward. 

rheri  Capt.  Mackenzie,  assuming  somewhat  too  much  of 
the  ^c  hauten  has  tone,  for  a  nautical  critic  who  backs  his 
main-top-sail   to  ware-ship,  sneers  at  my  calling  the  posi- 
tion  of  the  Niagara,  one  or  two  cable's  lengths  to  windward 
of  the  enemy  s  heaviest  vessels  -  commanding;"  another 
touch  of  seamanship  of  which  I  will  not  complain.     The 
following  circumstance,  however,  in   connection  with  this 
point,  may  be  worth  mentioning.     Shortly  after  the  arbi- 
tration  of  last  year,  I  was  addressed  in  the  City  Hall   bv 
an  utter  stranger,  who  told  me  his  name  was  Webster,  and 
that  he  regretted  ill  health  had  prevented  his  hearing  our 
discussion,  as  he  knew  something  of  tiie  case.     IVir.  Web- 
ster  then  went  on  to  make  his  statement.     He  had  paid  a 
visit  to  Perry,  shortly  after  the   battle,  and  had    heard  his 
account  of  all  its  details,  over  and  over  again,  the  object  of 
•n r ^l'^"ll^^f  .^^.^-/-rd^^-»«  to  make  an  eilgrav- 
v^lv.  ;  "■"'  "'"'":  '''\  '■  ^i^^  «  staienients,    according  to  Mr. 
Webster,  was  that  he  had  found  the  Niagara  in  an  exce' 
lent  position.     i\Jr.  Webster  ha.,  1  believe!  since  publish ea 
this  account,  under  his  own  sigr.ature.  P"0"S"ea 

8* 


m 


BATTLE    Of   LAKE    ERIE. 


yJ'tLTl  *^^'';^^*",7 '»»' tJ"'  peculiar  mind  of  Ciipt.  Macken- 
/le.  that  hn  should  cuv.l    about    tla..  poH.iion  Jive,,  th.  n". 

«ngtl  ,  both  .u  luH  hook  and  in  Iuh  letter  in  the  IW,  when 

UtTir'^'n  "  "'1^''  \'"^   "  P<>wch.r-n.onkey   eould  «n- 
ckrHland    I.      He  might    have    .JKHpuled   t\w  fact,  without 

«Hui:;^he^n:r''^""*  ^'^^  "^  *"^»'"^-  ^^^  ^-^^^-^^  -•- 

A8  a  mere  biography,  Capt.  Mnckrn/ie's  hook  in  Hufli- 
cicntly  weak.  x\o  doubt  it  has  many  facts  that  were  not 
known  to  the  piddic,  but,  the  in.tant  the  writer  attempt** 
to  reason,  he  breaks  down.  I  shall  not  trnvel  out  of  the 
record  to  prove  this,  though  F  shall  cite  one  instance,  be- 
cause ,t  wdl  show  that  even  Perry  was  too  much  under 
the  ndlucnce  ot  (eeling  to  be  altogether  junt  and  discrimi- 
uating  in  his  Htatements. 

The  battle  was  fought  on  the  10th  Sept.  It  has  been 
seen  that  Dr  Parsons  broke  ground,  by  questioning  .(,me 
^  the  wounded  of  the  Niagara,  as  early  as  the  12th.~ 
Soon  after  a  brother  ol  Capt.  Elliott's  arrive.  1,  and  stated 
that  reports  unfavorable  to  him,  were  hi  circulation  anmng 
Harrison  «  troops  It  is  probable  this  is  the  first  direct 
intimation  Capt.  Elliott  received  of  what  was  passing. 

^.n.%'CT.^'fT'"  Capt  Perry,   winch  wa.  dated 
^ept.  iyth,and  which  has  been  given  in  his  own  biography 
and  in  several  other  and  earlier  publications,  in  the  follow' 
wig  words  :  viz — 

U.  S.  Brig  Niagara,  Put-in-Bay,  \ 
^.       ^  .  ^         ,  Sept.irth,  1813.      J 

air :  l  am  informed  a  report  has  been  circulated  by 
some  malicious  persons,  prejudicial  to  my  vessel  when 
engaged  v/ith  the  enemy's  fleet.  I  will  thank  you,  if  you 
will,  with  candor,  state  to  me  the  conduct  of  myself,  officers 
and  crew. 

Respectfully  your  Ob.  Ser. 

,    JESSE  D.  ELLIOTT. 
Capt.  Perry. 

Captain  Mackenzie  makes  if  n  aArir^ua  r.Ut^rfo   t-oJ^-*- 

r*     *.'tmi-         1        1  •    1 ■"'  '-''"rge   against 

i^apt.  Llhott,  that  this  letter  has  not  been  correctly  given. 

He  even  puts  this  language  into  the  mouth  of  Perry  con- 


ccrmnir 


nATTi>;  ur  i.akk  rnie. 
••  The  iHitf*  iul(iretjii(  (I 


nf 


Jretjiic  (I  to   me,  (mrnnintr   the 

nnOV*     m't«,)lg    ALTOOKT.fKR    i;nmkr    Till!    OR.CilN.Vl.,'  .^,C, 

nl^        ;u'k..iizi«   ^ucsth,    .,»t«   from  tho  original   fouu< 
nmon.      om.  IVrryV  purw^r,  ;  „  ,f  it,  no  Uoiibt  correctly,  i. 
conchtu  iti  flione  words,  ^^ 

n       «!•       ».  ^'  '^•.'*'/   ^    ':«"•«,  ^V.  IDM,  l.si.X 
fron.7K      V   .^'^  l»'-"t»'*''-.  ^vho   huH  thi-  evening  urrivcd 

r  |M  rt  that  uppeand  to  he-  in  ffvnvrn]  circulntior,,  that,  in 
he  ate  action  with  the  British  tle^t,  my  vchh,!  he  t  rayed  a 
want  ot  condnct  in  hnngin^.  into  action,  and  that  your  ve«- 
»tl  wuH  sacrificed  in  conseu  M^nce  of  a  i^ant  of  exertion  ou 
iny  part  imhvidnally.  I  v  thank  you,  if  immediately 
yon  \vill,  with  can<h.r,  name  to  nie  my  cx(  una  and  that  of 
my  omccrs  and  crew» 

Yours,  respectfully. 

ur     .  r.  ,r    T.  •'^'^^^^  ^'   ELLIOTT. 

♦*Capt.  O.  IL  Perry,  Erie." 

Now  this  last  note  is  not  altooether  unlikr  the  firnt 
It   IS  substantially  the  same.     Tliere  i^  no  difference    buJ 
what  very   well  and  very  honestly  may  have  happened  in 
mideavoring  to  pve  a  transcript  from  memory.     Captain 
Elliott  says  ho  kept  no  copy,  and  when  it   was  necessary 
to  publish   he  was  obliged  to  give  what  he  rightly  suppos- 
ed  to  be  the  substance  of  his  own  note.     He  has  done  so, 
as  toal   essentials.      Hear  what   Capt.    iMackenzie   says 
about  these  notes.     -  On  a  comparison  of  the  real,  original 
e  ter  written  by  Capt.  Elliott,  as  given  in   the  tJxt,    with 
his  letter,  published  in  the  Erie  Sentinel,  a  month  and   a 
lialt  atterwards,  and  re-produced  in  the  Life  of  Com.  Elli- 
ott,  the  reader  will  perceive  that  the  whole  tone  of  the  letter 
IS  <^^^vxgi,d  Jrom  an  urgent  friendly  appeal  io  a  perempto- 
ry DEMAND.       Now,  1  confess,  I  am  surprised  that  even 
Capt  Mackenzie  should  not  scruple  to  assert  tliis,  with  the 

284  vLT'l  ^T^"^  .""l  '^'''  f  ""^"  P^^^  '    (^««    "«te,    page 
f.ltV  *   ^f^  «f  l*«rry.)     The  first  sentence,  in  lafh 

letter,  is  simply  explanatory,  and  the  substance  of  thfv.P 
prearaDies  is  the  same.     If  there  be  any  difference  in  tone\ 
m  these  preambles  it  i^agaui,t  Capt.  Mackenzie's  view, as 
by  making   the  allusion  to  the  Lawrence's    having   been 


I 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


1.0 


I.I 


1.25 


£  Iti    12.0 


U    11.6 


Sciences 
Corporation 


23  WEST  MAIN  STREFT 

WEBSTER,  N.Y.  14580 

(716)  872-4503 


k 


A 


{/ 


^ 

fK^ 


^if    W.e 


WJ^ 


i^ 


■i>^ 


iV 


iV 


'9) 


<^ 


Si- 


6^ 


? 


fe 


<< 


03 


BATTtE    OF    LAKE    EUIE. 


eacrificed  by  Elliott',  conduct,  a  distorted  imagination 
might  possibly  see  something  personal,  as  between  the  two 
F^r  ?."%  ^^*'  allusion  can  be  made  out,  it  is  in  Capt. 
*.!  lot  s  favor,  inasmuch  as  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  letter 
actually  sent,  and  not  in  the  letter  published.  The  same 
IS  rue  as  to  the  "  demand,"  which  after  all,  contains  the 
substance  of  the  charge.  The  letters  are  substantially 
Identical,  as  to  this  sentence,  with  the  exception  of  the  use 
of  the  word  -  immediately,"  which  word  alone  can,  by 
possibility,  be  tortured  into  any  thing  "  peremptory."  But 
this  "  immediately"  is  to  be  found  i.i  the*^  letter^  sent,    and 

rl'."M'!'"''P'i^^^^*'"^'  ^*»«   difference   in   the  dates 
Capt,  Mackenzie,  himself,  thinks  immaterial,  and  acciden- 

pi«     Ta-      ^^^  ^n«^«rs,  in  which  Capt.  Mackenzie  al- 
leges  a  difference  also  to  exist. 

U.  S.  schooner  Ariel,  Put-in-Bay,  \ 

lir    T^       o-       r  ^^P*'  ^S^^.  1^13.      } 

My  Dear  Sir:  I  received  your  note  last  evening,  after  I 

had  turned  m,  or  I  should  have  answered  it  immediately. 

I  am  indignant   that  any  report  should  be  circulated  pre- 

iHf/Z  ir"i  *^*!^'^^^r  ««  r««Pects  the  action  of  the  10th 
instant.  It  affords  me  just  pleasure  that  T  have  it  in  mv 
power  to  assure  you,  that  the  conduct  of  yourself,  officers 
and  crew,  was  such  as  to  merit  my  warmest  approbation  j 
hrjL  r"'      iV*"^  circumstance  of  your   volunteering  to 

Inr^S'r"'''" '''''"''  r^.^^^'"  action,  as  contributing 
S  L  our  victory.  I  shari  ever  believe  it  a  premedi? 
ta.ed  plan  to  destroy  our  commanding  vessel.  I  have  no 
doubt,  had  not  the  Queen  Charlotte  have  ran  away  from 
the  JNiagara.  from  the  superior  order  I  observed  her  in 
you  would  have  taken  her  in  twenty  minutes.  ' 

With  sentiments  of  esteem,  I  am,  dear  sir, 
Your  friend  and  obedient  servant, 

..     ,  .    ^„.  O.  H.  PERRY. 

Captain  Elliott. 

Here  follows  Capt.  Mackenzie's  version  of  the  same  let- 
ter, taken,  as  he  savs.  from  a  ...;wm  fnunH  ur»^^^   d »_ 

papers,  viz  ; —  *=  ' 


BATTLE    OP   LAKE    ERIE. 


93 


U.  S.  schooner  Ariel,  Put-in-Bay,  \ 
Sept.  Vdth,  1813.  ] 
Dear  Sir  :  I  received  your  note  last  evening  after  I  Jiad 
turned  in,  or  I  should  have  answered  it  immediately.  1  am 
indignant  that  any  report  should  be  in  circulation  prejudi- 
cial to  your  character,  as  respects  the  action  of  the  10th  in- 
stant. It  aiFords  me  pleasure  that  I  have  it  in  my  power 
to  assure  you,  that  the  conduct  of  yourself,  officers  and 
crew  was  such  as  to  meet  my  warmest  approbation.  And 
I  consider  the  circumstance  of  your  volunteering,  and 
bringing  the  small  vessels  to  close  action  as  contributing 
largely  to  our  victory.  I  shall  ever  believe  it  a  premedita- 
ted plan  of  the  enemy  to  disable  our  commanding  vessel, 
by  bringing  all  their  force  to  bear  on  her ;  and  I  am  satis- 
lied,  had  they  not  pursued  this  course,  the  engagement 
would  not  have  lasted  thirty  minutes.  I  have  no  doubt,  if 
the  Charlotte  had  not  made  sail  and  engaged  the  Law- 
rence, the  Niagara  would  have  taken  her  in  twenty 
minutes. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

O.   H.  PERRY. 

Capt.  Jesse  D.  Elliott,       \ 
U.  S.  ship  Niagara.     ) 

This  is  the  answer  which  Capt.  Mackenzie  adm=«s 
Perry  sent  to  Capt.  Elliott.  Capt.  Mackenzie  says,  that 
Perry,  in  writing  such  a  letter,  »'  committed  a  great  fault, 
cannot  be  denied."  It  is  a  little  odd  that,  reasoning  on  his 
own  premises,  or  believing  that  Elliott  did  not  deserve  such 
a  letter,  Capt.  Mackenzie  is  the  only  human  being  who 
would  probably  ever  think  of  denying  this,  his  own  propo- 
sition. Deny  it  he  does,  however,  in  effect,  at  page  13-:?, 
of  vol.  2d,  where  he  says  that  the  affair  of  Capt.  Heath 
was  the  "  single  serious  fault"  of  Perry's  Life.  But  a  mind 
of  so  much  subtelty  may  see  a  distinction  between  a  serious 
faulty  and  a  great  fault — it  evidently  sees  a  crime  in  Capt, 
EUiott's  version  of  the  letters. 

Now,  supposing  both  of  the  letters  as  given  by  Captain 
Mackenzie   to  be  correctly  given,  which  alterations  does 
the  reader  fancy  that  gentleman  treats  as  the  most  grave  i 
Those  in  Capt.  Elliott's  not    !  Such  is  the  waywardness  of 
high  intellect !  Ordinary  men  would  see  a  substantial  alter* 


94 


UATTLE   OP    LAKE    ERIE, 


utioa  in  the  assertion  that  the  Queen  Charlotte  ran  away 
from  the  Niagara,  but  Mr.  Mackenzie  does  not,  while  he 
thmksthe  substitution  of  "  Sir"  for  "  Dear  sir"  a  very  se- 
rious matter ;  as  he  does  in  Perry's  letter  the  substitution 
ot  "  My  dear  sir,"  for  '•  Dear  sir." 

In  the  first  place,  Capt.  Perry,  while  he  does  complain 
of  the  alteration  in  Capt.  Elliott's  note,  affirming  it   was 
"  altogether  unlike"  what  he  had  actually  written,  which 
any  man  may  see  it  is  not,  dots  not  complain  of  any  alter- 
ation m  his  own.     Now,  where  there  was  so  strong  a  dis- 
position to  take  exceptions—so  strong  as  to  cause  Captain 
Perry  to  write  to  a  friend  that  the  two  Elliott  notes  were 
"altogether  unlike,"  it  is  hardly  probable  the  changes  in  his 
own  letter  would  have  passed  unnoticed,  did  they  actually 
exist.     If  Capt.  Perry  copied  his  own  letter  a  little  care- 
lessly, or  from  memory,  he  did  the  very  thing  that  Captain 
Elliott  IS  accused  of  having  done,  and  must  be  put  in   the 
same  category,  with  this  essential  difference,  that  the  alter- 
ations made  by  himself  are  much  the  most  material.  I  pro- 
fess to  know  no  more  of  the  matter,  though  I  have  seen  a 
copy  of  Capt.  Perry's  letter,  certified  to  as   corresponding 
to  the   original,  m  hich  agrees  with  the  letter  given  in  the 
Biography    of  Elliott.      That  Capt.  Perry's  copy   is  not 
scrupulously  exact,  I  infer  from  this  fact.    It  ends  abrupt- 
ly '*  Respectfully,  &c.,"  which  is  not  the  termination  a  man 
would  be  apt  to  use,  who  felt  so  much  indignation  in  be- 
half of  an  injured  friend^''  My  dear  sir"  even  seems  more 
natural  than  "Dear  sir,"  though  that  may  depend  on  hab- 
it.     I  have  had  in  my  possession  six  or  eight  notes  written 
from  Capt.  Perry  to  Capt.  Elliott,  about  this  time,  and  all 
but  one  terminates  "  Yours  truly,"~-The  exception  termi- 
nates "  Yours  very  Iruly."     This  was  after  the  note  of  the 
19th  September,  and  it  does  not  seem  likely  to  me,  that  a 
man  who   wrote   "  Yours  truly"   on  ordinary  occasions, 
would  be  apt  to  cut  off  a  letter  like  that  given  by  Captain 
Mackenzie  with  a  cold  "  Respectfully,  &c." 

I  attach  very  little  importance  to  all  this—the  opinion  of 
Elliott's  conduct,  given  by  Capt.  Perry  nine  days  after  the 
battle  excepted — but  as  Cant.  Mackenzie  attaches  a  ^reat 
deal,  especially  to  the  "  Sir,"  and  "  Dear  sir,"  I  have  an- 
swered him.     There  is  one  point,  in  his  objections,  how- 


t( 


BATTLE    OP    LAKE    ERIE, 


05 


«ver,  which  I  have  reserved  for  the  last.  lie  thinks  the 
«uppression  of  the  fact  that  injurious  reports  to  the  preju- 
dice of  Capt.  Elhott,  prevailed  in  Gen.  Harrison's  army,wa8 
of  grave  import,  and  waa  intentionally  done  in  the  pub- 
lished note  by  C  ipt.  Elliott.  If  Capt.  Elliott  reasoned  thus, 
why  did  he  put  it  into  the  note  at  ail  ]  His  question  could 
have  been  put  as  well  without,  as  with  it.  Then,  by  what 
ingenuity,  even  of  the  Mackenzie  school,  can  this  circum- 
stance be  tortured  into  a  wish  to  give  the  note  more  the  air 
of  a  peremptory  demand  1 

The  dullest  minds  and  the  lowest  moral  feelings  ever 
attach  the  most  importance  to  vulgar  **  report."  Captain 
Mackenzie  lays  stress  on  these  **reports,"  more  especially  if 
they  have  the  salt  of  calumny.  The  man  of  the  world  knows 
that  the  rarest  thing  in  it,  is  pure,  unadulterated  truth.  So 
rare  is  it,  indeed,  that  half  mankind  cannot  recognize  it, 
when  they  see  it.  "  Reports,"  forscuih  !  Why,  it  was  a 
current  report  not  long  since,  that  Capt.  Mackenzie  him- 
self, in  a  hand-to-hand  conflict,  suppressed  a  furious  muti- 
ny on  board  the  U.  S.  brg  Somers.  How  many  persons 
have  believed  Capt.  Mackenzie's  own  report  touching  the 
meanness  of  Capt.  Elliott,  in  taking  refuge  in  Capt.  Perry's 
official  letter,  before  the  Court  of  Inquiry,  of  1815 1  This 
"  report  in  the  army,"  like  *'  the  rumor"  that  only  two  men 
were  wounded  on  board  the  Niagara  before  the  arrival  of 
Capt.  Perry,  has  ever  been  a  strong  point  on  that  side  of 
the  question,  but  wisdom  tells  us  the  value  of  such  argu- 
ments. Sad  experience  may  teach  Capt.  Mackenzie  that 
it  is  miserable  testimony  to  hear  it  said  "  That  the  d — d 
fool  is  on  the  larboard  arm-chest,  and  the  d — d  rascal  on 
starboard" — That  there  is  really  such  a  thing  as  "  evi- 
dence" in  this  world,  and  that  wise  men  seek  it,  and  intel- 
ligent and  just  men  like  to  get  it  on  both  sides  before  they 
make  up  a  judgment.  A  lie,  of  the  comparative  interest  of 
this  *  report*  about  Capt.  Elliott,  would  have  entered  one 
wing  of  Napoleon's  largest  force,  and  travelled  through  all 
the  corps  d^armee^  in  a  week.  There  is  a  rumor,  now  very 
prevalent  in  this  country,  that  Capt.  Mackenzie    proved 

hltYiaoIr    a    tr^rxxxTOfA       in    fltn   «-flK.»i."  y>f  *K/-»    »-««.r>4-   l^>%..    ...I...    _. __ 
•  ••>K7\.'o    C*   \ytjTTa,ilij     :ii    liitj    u^xuxx    xji    llic    17UB l" SJL7 V     >VIlO    WilS    iiS- 

sassinated  in  Spain,  and  it  has  grown  out  of  the  supposed 
qualities  that  he  manifested  on  board  the  Somers.  T  do  not 


1 


f 


ua 


UATThK    OF    LAKE    ERIR. 


mention  tliin,  l)ecauHo  1  tliinU  Cnpi.  MiicJionzio  ni«Til« 
♦iitlirr  accusation,  lor,  in  this,  I  honestly  think  ^rroMM  injuM* 
tico  iH  lUmv.  him;  hut  to  jrivc  liini  tan^ri|,|'„  proolOfilie  vahio 
of  *  rumor.*  I  make  no  (h)uht  he  was  riir|,t,  in  takiuir  the 
course  lie  did  in  Sjuun,  nor  do  I  think  he  was  inrtuenced 
by  fear,  in  ilH  ahjoct  8ens<',  in  the  allairof  the  SonicrH.  I 
linve  pleuHure  ni  myiu^  this,  hecau8e  \w  wearH  the  Navy 
hutton,  thouu:h  I  think  him  otherwiHe,  as  wronjr  in  that  af- 
fair, as  a  man  well  eould  he,  [t  is  heneath  the  character 
<if  a  historian  to  lay  any  stress  on  '  reports' of  hucIi  a  nature, 
unless  sustained  by  sulfici^mt  proof. 

I  can  •five  Ca|)t.  Macken/.ie  a  case,  in  the  service,  very 
analo<rous  in  some  of  its  features,  not  only  to  the  rumors  in 
Gen.  Harrison's  army,  hut  to  the  popular  opinion  concern- 
in«r  Com.  Elliott's  supposed  delinquency  in  the  battle  of 
liQke  Erie.  It  touched,  at  one  time,  the  reputation  of  on<' 
of  the  best  officers  in  the  Navy— Com.  IJiddle—and  I  know 
that  nothinir  but  the  hiirh  character  he  won  in  the  war  of 
ISV2,  prevented  its  break inir  out  a«,niin8t  him,  with  stren^^th. 
Had  he  been  the  obj(?ct  of  unprincipled  attacks,  in  connec- 
tion with  party  politics,  no  one  can  doubt  that  the  whole 
country  would  have  rung  with  it.  About  the  year  1820, 
Capt.  IJiddle,  in  the  Conjrress,  frigate,  suffered  himself  to 
be  wnrried  off  the  port  of  Cadiz,  by  a  French  blockading 
squadron,  going  into  Gibraltar  with  his  ship.  This  was 
compromising  the  honor  of  the  flag,  to  all  appearan  ;s  ;  it 
being  the  established  privilege  of  a  nmn-of-war  to  pass  a 
blockade.  Again,  Capt.  Biddle  went  to  the  Havana,  in 
the  Macedonian,  and  got  the  yellow  fever  in  his  ship,  suf- 
fering severely,  and  greatly  to'  the  prejudice  of  his  own  re- 
putation, at  the  time,  for  discretion,  in  both  instances  the 
comi»laints  were  ro  tieep  as  to  reach  my  ear,  though  then 
unconnected  with  the  service,  except  by  old  friendships  and 
feeling.  Any  man  may  have  disliked  the  affairs,and  glad  was 
I  to  learn,  years  afterwards,  that  Com.  Biddle  acted,  in  both 
cases,  under  precise  orders  from  the  Department.  He  had 
the  dignity  of  mind  to  forbear  until  a  fitting  opportunity 
arrived,  and  then  in  asserting  his  rights  as  a  man-of-war's 
man.  \\itli  nroner   snirit.   on  tho    llivw;!   ctafion     L^  ;«/.; 

dentally  mentioned  the  Cadiz  transaction,  as  a  case  not  to 
be  cited  as  a  precedent,  inasmuch  as  the  commander  of  the 


BATTLR   OP    LAKF.    RRir. 


97 


very 


CoiigrcMH  acted  under  ordrrs  from  his  government.  How 
JH  it  with  Com.  Klliott  ?  Ifo  was  uHtcrn,  with  hid  top-sail 
to  th<'  nuiHt,  whihi  the  Imwrence  was  sufTerinff,  and  the  cry 
is  he  oii^ht  to  have  made  Mail  and  ch)8ed.  Viewed  in  thiu 
naked  manner,  it  is  no  wonder  a  parcel  of  western  militiu 
volunteers  crit'd  out  aj;r,ii„st  him.  Hut  what  a  different 
case  i^  off*ered  when  we  find  that  the  top-sail  was  ahack  to 
prevent  goin^r  into  a  vesnel,  astern  of  which  he  was  ordered 
t(»  keep  one  hundred  and  twenty  yards  ;  that  this  station 
was  not  only  given  to  him,  hut  ••  enjoinko*'  upon  him  ; 
that  the  superior  wh.)  had  given  the  injunction  was  there 
to  recall  it,  if  he  deemed  it  necessary,  and  that  ho  was  in 
the  hcHt  situation  toju<lge  of  that  necessity  ! 

Capt.  Mackenzie  thinks  a  *  report*  in  Gen.  Harrison's 
army  so  very  conclusive  against  Capt.  Elliott,  when,  on 
its  face,  that  army  could  only  know  what  it  heard.  He 
himself  believed  a  'report,'  and  had  the  indiscretion  to 
print  it,  too,  when  he  was  told  that  Paul  Jones'  sword 
passed  from  Com.  Barry,  through  two  or  three  oiher  senior 
officers  of  the  navy,  down  to  Com.  Dale  ;  when  the  facts 
show  that  Com.  Harry  bequeathed  this  sword  directly  to 
Com.  Dale,  that  it  never  pi.ssed  down  through  any  senior 
officer,  that  Com.  Dale  never  was  senior  officer  of  the  Navy^ 
and  that  hb  was  not  in  the  Navv  at  all,  when  he  re- 
CEiVKo  THIS  8WOUD  !     So  much  for  ♦»  reports." 

Another  instance  of  the  vahie  of  '  reports'  is  directly 
connected  with  Capt.  Elliott,  himself.  Nothing  could  have 
been  better  than  the  conduct  of  this  officer  in  cutting  out 
the  two  brigs  from  under  Fort  Eric,  and  yet  a  *  report'  has 
widely  prevailed  in  the  navy,  that  one  of  these  vessels  at 
least,  was  given  up  to  him  by  treachery — a  'report'  to  which 
Perry,  himself,  alludes  in  the  letter  accompanying  his 
charges.  Now,  this  'report'  is  vindicated  only  by  *  report' — 
rumor  sustaining  rumor,  without  a  particle  of  any  thing 
approaching  evidence,  while  the  proof  of  the  falsity  of  this 
*  report'  is  direct,  complete,  overwhelming— as  full  as  be- 
longs to  any  case  in  the  history  of  the  country  ! 

Away  then  with  these  unjust  puerilities,  and  let  the  men 

o»  America,  meet  a  qucslioii  of  fact  like  men,  and  not  as  so 

many  village  crones    gossijiing  around  a  tea-pot !     What 

sort  of  notions  would  the  public  obtain,  what  would  be  the 

9 


■fill 


jj? 


m 


OS 


UATTLE    OF    LAKE    ERIC. 


chamcter  of  the  *  reports/  from  dinfframs  like  those  of  Mr. 
BurgcH*H,  criticism  like  tliut  of  Dr.  Durr's,  facts  and  docu- 
mentary evidence  like  these  of  Capt.  Mackenzie's! 

In  the  foregoing  statements,  1  have  not  attempted  to 
dissect  a  tithe  of  the  blunders,  inaccuracies,  and  false  reas- 
oning of  Capt.  Mackenzie.  What  I  have  said,  I  trust  has 
been  plainly  said.  As  a  rule,  I  dislike  the  argumentum  ad 
hominetn,  but  Mr.  Mackenzie  is  a  writer  >vho  provokes 
this  species  of  retort,  by  his  own  fondness  for  it.  He  ap- 
plies it  to  me,  on  various  occasions,  and  he  will  now  dis- 
cover, perhaps,  that  he  is  not  altogether  invulnerable, 
himself. 

The  reader  will  have  perceived  that  Capt.  Mackenzie 
deprives  himselfof  all  excuse  of  ignorance,  by  admitting  in 
terms  that  he  had  all  the  evidence  before  him,  and  thinks 
he  commented  on  it,  in  the  body  of  his  book  !  Thus, 
when  he  accuses  Capt.  Elliott  of  the  meanness  of  falling 
back  on  Perry's  official  account  of  the  battle,  before  the 
Court  of  Inquiry  of  1815,  a  charge  that  I  have  proved  un- 
answerably by  the  record  of  that  court  is  not  true,  he  had 
that  very  record  before  him^  and  commented  on  the  testi- 
mony, BY  HIS  OWN  SHOWING.  That  he  had  the  record  be- 
fore him,  mjght  be  proved  from  divers  admissions  in  his 
work  itself,  but  his  own  direct  declaration  supersedes  the 
necessity  of  producing  further  evidence. 

As  for  Capt.  Mackenzie's  pretended  comments  on  the 
testimony  in  favor  of  Capt.  Elliott,  they  would  appear 
ridiculous  to  any  discreet  man  who  should  take  the  trouble 
to  examine  the  documents.  He  has  selected  one  or  two 
paints,  generally  of  a  very  immaterial  character,  and  has 
reasoned  on  them  in  his  own  peculiar  manner,  leaving  the 
great  mass  of  the  evidence  untouched  !  The  *  peculiar 
manner'  is  this — *'  //  is  not  likely''''  he  says  *'  that  a  sin<>Ie 
officer  was  present  at  the  larboard  gangway"  to  receive 
Perry,  when  he  reached  the  Niagara.  Upon  this  "  it  is 
not  likely"  he  infers  that  the  oaths  of  those  who  swear  dis- 
tinctly to  what  they  heard^  were  untrue  !  This  is  com- 
menting on  testimony  with  a  vengeance  !  Now  it  was 
likely  that  everv  officer  of  the  ouarter-deck.  who  was  not 
otherwise  engaged,  should  go  forward  to  receive  Perry. 
Capt.  Brevoort  was  acting  as  a  marine  officer,  and  it  was 


DATTLE    OF    LAKE    ERIE. 


09 


the  most  natural  tiling  in  the  world  tlkit  he  should  he  there, 
and,  as  for  the  Boatswain  he  was  ordered  tliero.  Then 
Capt.  Mackenzie  |»utt«  tlie  bri^  at  long  shut^  mbatantially 
out  of  the  action,  and  this  increases  the  difticulticH  of  lits 
case.  What  particuhir  reason  was  there,  if  the  Niagara 
totre  at  long-shot  from  the  enemy,  why  an  otficer  who  com- 
manded small  arni*8  men,  and  who  was  stationed  on,  or 
near  the  quarter  deck  of  a  ship  of  five  hundred  tons,  should 
not  approach  the  gangway,  to  receive  a  commander  com- 
ing on  board  under  tlie  known  circumstances  of  this  tase  1 
One  has  oidy  to  examine  mostofCajit,  IMackcnzie'a  dis- 
tinctive facts,  in  this  manner,  to  appreciate  them  at  their 
true  value.  The  fact  of  Perry's  coming  on  board  their 
l)rig  at  all,  would  be  likely  to  attract  the  attention  of  all 
the  otficers,  who  were  aware  of  that  fact,  even  had  the  Ni- 
agara been  in  close  action  ;  but,  putting  her  at  long  shot, 
where  Capt.  MacUenzie  places  her,  it  was  the  most  natural 
thing,  in  the  world,  that  the  division  officers  should  get  as 
near  the  gangway  as  they  could,  without  absolutely  quitting 
their  quarters,  which  might  have  brought  them  all  quite 
within  reach  of  Perry's  "clarion  voice."  I  state  this 
merely  to  show  the  value  of  Mr.  Mackenzie's  reasoning — 
taking  the  facts  as  he  states  them — and  not  at  all  because 
£  deem  it  necessary  to  the  justification  of  the  Niagara's 
oflicers.  These  last  gentlemen  meet  the  objection,  as  I 
have  already  shown,  in  the  letter,  itself,  in  which  Perry 
and  his  biographer  think  they  err,  giving  their  statement 
simply  as  the  results  of  their  united  observations ;  some 
having  seen  one  thing,  some  another.  It  is  necessary  to 
remember,  however,  that  when  they  speak  of  the  position 
of  their  brig,  all  these  gentlemen,  but  Dr.  Barton,  testify  ; 
for  those  on  deck  could  not  be  ignorant  of  that  circum- 
stance, the  governing  point  of  this  controversy. 

But  Capt.  Mackenzie  has  not  been  content  to  limit  his 
case  to  these  rumors,  vague  and  unfounded  as  they  were. 
He  has  assumed  far  more  than  even  Perry,  under  the  angry 
feelings  of  1818,  and  in  his  feeble  charges,  saw  fit  to  allege 
against  Capt  Elliott.  This  it  is  which  has  compelled  him 
to  appear  as  supporting  a  subtiltv  as  miserable  as  that  of 
the  "  ENABLED,"  and  has  led  him  into  so  many  contra- 
dictions and  fallacies.     In  his  own  book,  Capt.  Mackenzie 


A\\ 


100 


BATTI.K    OP    LAKE    ERIR. 


g'wcBf  himselff  ahundnnt  proof  that  Perry  never  drefimed 
of  deny  in|^  that  Citpt.  I'^lliott  brought  tin;  Niagara  iiit(»  cIomc 
action.  He  Iuim  done  it  at  pai^e  t2t)7,  vol.  I,  where  he  niaUeM 
Perry  aay — **  It  was  a  matter  of  great  (h>ubt,  when  I  lieguii 
to  reflect  upon  Capt.  ElUott^s  conduct,  to  what  to  attri* 
hute  his  keeping  .<«)  /onf(  out  of  the  action.**  Here  h  an 
implied  adniiHHion  that  he  got  into  action,  though  late  ;  and 
that  it  iM  intended  for  close  action^  i»  obvious  from  the  fact 
that  all  Perry's  complaints,  charges,  dec,  admit  that  the 
Niagiira  was  in  distant  action,  from  a  period  very  soon 
aller  the  Ijawrencc  herself  was  <;ngaged. 

A  striking;  fault  of  Mr  Mackenzie's  is,  the  <)ispusition 
to  defer  to  every  thing  that  Capt.  Perry  has  seen  fit  to  ad- 
vance, with  the  exception  uf  those  instances  in  which  he 
has  spoken  well  of  Capt.  Elliott.  The  latter  he  coniiiiders 
sufficiently  answered  by  the  circumstance  that  it  was  the 
pleasure  of  (Japt.  Perry  to  recall  them  !  This  will  prove 
to  be  better  logic  with  the  Perry  connection,  I  apprehend, 
that!  with  the  rest  of  the  human  family.  Capt.  Perry, 
himself,  has  told  us  in  his  letter  accompanying  the  cht*rges, 
that  an  issue  had  been  made  up  between  his  character  and 
that  of  Capt  Elliott's,  else  he  sliould  have  remained  silent ; 
and,  by  his  own  showing,  he  is  incapacitated  to  be  a  witness. 
He  has  told  diftcrent  stories,  and  no  man,  after  this,  can 
stand  before  the  world,  and  say  I  was  wrong  in  all  I  said 
in  his  favor,  and  am  now  right  in  all  I  say  against  him»— 
In  addition  to  this  safe  principle,  we  have  the  most  unan- 
swerable proofs  that  Capt.  Perry  was  wrong  in  much — I 
may  say  in  most — of  that  which  he  has  advanced  against 
Capt.  Elliott. 

He  affirms  (in  his  charges)  that  only  two  men  were  hurt 
before  he  reached  the  Niagara ;  and  all,  on  Dr.  Parsons*s 
testimony  and  the  '*  received  opinions"  of  the  fleet ;  for 
there  is  no  other  evidence.  I  have  shown  what  both  are 
worth.  His  first  specification,  under  his  first  charge,  is 
an  elaborate  declaration  that  Capt.  Elliott  had  been  guilty 
of  fraud  in  procuring  certain  officers  to  certify  that  he  had 
held  the  conversation  which  has  been  mentioned,  on  coming 
on  board  the  Niagara,  when  most  of  those  officers  were  in 
a  situation  which  must  have  prevented  them  from  hearing 
it.     Now  all  this  proceeds   from  reading  the  letter  with  a 


nATTLK    OP    I.AKK    ERIE. 


101 


hofltile  fi'olin^,  it«  own  oxplnnntion  of  the  content*  bein<|r 
tho  rtJHult  (»f  l\w  *•  coiiihiiii'd  olmorvationH"  of  thfie  oftictT*, 
iinniiMweriilily  provinj^  the  iiicHiiiii^,  and  of  course  fully 
meetiiiK  the  churjfe.  iJeMidi'H,  not  a  particle  of  evidence  i« 
produced  to  show  thnt  ('apt.  Klliott  had  any  tliinpr  to  do 
with  the  letter,  an<l,  aw  for  the  convernation,  it  im  fully  proved  ! 
As  I  have  pointed  out  the  little  value  of  these  charf^et,  one 
of  which  involves  a  physical  inipoH.Mihility,  or  contradiction, 
in  my  own  hicpraphicnl  Hketch  of  Perry,  it  is  unneecMsary 
to  po  over  the  pointn  here.  There  is  one  circumstance, 
however,  to  which  I  will  nlludt;,  ns  justice  demands  it,  and 
it  will  throw  nwich  li^ht  on  the  atate  of  Perry's  judgment. 
The  circumstance  is  this  :— 

Perry,  while  excusiujof  his  previous  commendations  of 
Capt.  Elliott,  says  in  his  letter  accompanying  the  chnr|(ei— 
**  I  would  not  allow  myself  to  come  to  a  decided  opinion, 
that  an  officer  who  had  so  handsomely  conducted  himself 
on  a  former  occasion,  a.t  T  then^  in  common  witk  the  pub- 
He^  had  been  led  to  suppose  Capt.  Elliott  had^  could  possi- 
bly be  guilty  of  cowardice,  or  treachery.'*  The  allusion  is 
to  a  malicious  calumny  that  was  got  up  about  this  time,  in 
the  effort  to  crush  Capt.  Elliott,  which  affirmed  that  his 
half-brother  commanded  the  Detroit,  and  the  vessel  was 
given  up  to  him  by  collusion.  This  idle  tale  had  a  good 
deal  of  circulation  in  the  naval  circles,  and  my  attention 
was  drawn  to  it,  while  preparing  the  History.  The  ex- 
amination 1  then  went  into  resulted  in  the  conviction  that 
the  whole  story  arose  from  the  following  facts.  Capt. 
Elliott  has,  or  had  a  half-brother  living  in  Canada,  who 
had  once  been  in  our  army,  but  who  marrying  in  the  British 
territory,  resigned,  and  established  himself  there.  This 
gentleman,  Capt.  Elliott  assures  me  was  almost  a  strnnger 
to  him.  A.  provincial  naval  officer,  of  the  name  of  Rou- 
lette, married  a  sister  of  this  Mr.  Elliott's  wife.  He  was 
an  officer  in  the  Detroit,  (one  of  her  lieutenants  T  believe) 
and  when  his  brig  was  taken,  he  made  himself  known  to 
his  ca]»tor,  with  a  view  to  reap  the  benefit  of  the  connec- 
tion—if connection  it  cm  be  called— in  the  way  of  treatment. 
The  same  officer  was  fxchflnged,  and  again  captured  on 
the  10th  Sept.  On  this  unfounded  cHhnuny,  Perry  lia» 
suffered  his  feelings  so  far  to  warp  his  sense  of  right,  as  to 
9* 


r  i 


4i. 


103 


HATTt  e  nr  i.akk  p.rii* 


tiinke  the  nlluNinii  I  Imvr  qiiotfil,  wifliniit  one  pnrtioUi  of 
tuatiiiHiiiy,  tor  iiom;  cnii  Uv  pnHiuccil.  'riirrc  Im  no  ividriicc 
to  )m>  CoiiikI  ill  nii|i|iort  of  tliu  tiilo,  wliile,  on  the  other  huiiii, 
the  iitrnir  of  the  oiipturc  of  xUa  two  liri^ti  him  hccii  thoroiiglily 
examined,  ami  the  prools  M'  C'apt  r.llioti*i»  Rpint,  activity, 
pr(  iiiptitude  and  /eal  on  th<>  occaHiun,  urn  ofthe  niuit  con, 
elusive  nature. 

Perry  ii  not  guihh'Ms  of  diMiiif^cnuouHneM,  on  another 
point.  He  went  (h»wn  in  the  Lawrence,  Cupt.  Maeken/.ie 
8ayH  within  tliree  hun<lre<l  and  i'liXy  yardii  ofthe  nuiny, 
backed  hin  top-Hail,  and  engaged.  Here  he  hiy,  acc<»rdinfl{ 
to  his  own  account,  ahout  two  liouri».  I  suppoMts  he  hacked 
hiii  top-Hail  ahout  five  lmndre<l  yards  from  the  liUj^liHli  line, 
where  he  hiy,  as  mentioned.  At  all  evcnti*,  it  in  easy  to 
demouHtrate  from  the  atVulavit  cd'  the  Lawrence's  Hailin^- 
muater,  that  he  hud  Home  such  distance  as  the  last  in  hir^ 
mind,  or  hid  affidavit  is  worthless.  It  is  possihie  the  hrii; 
may  have  set  down  materially,  after  she  was  crippled,  and 
while  the  wind  stood.  It  is  in  proof  that  Elliott  was  ahout 
us  near  the  enemy  as  the  Lawrence  hud  ever  |j;ot,  by  drift 
Of  otherwise,  when  Perry  came  on  board.  This  fact  is 
denied  by  Messrs  Yarnall,  Taylor,  and  Forrest,  it  is  true, 
but  their  testimony  is  borne  down  by  numbers,  und  by 
better  witne88i'!8,  including  Perry  himself. 

The  point,  under  this  state  of  facts,  is  this.  Perry,  in 
his  specifications,  speaks  of  his  bearing  up,  &c.  &c,  to 
bring  tl»c  Niagara  into  close  action^  because  he  took  her 
much  nearer  to  the  enemy  than  he  found  her^  actually 
passing  through  their  line.  This  fact  is  denied  by  no 
one  ;  and  Capt.  Elliott  took  the  Soniers  much  nearer  than 
he  had  taken  the  Niagara,  in  x\i^  finale  ofthe  piece,  when 
all  closed  upon  the  English  vessels.  But  it  is  disingenuous 
to  make  a  naked  statement  to  this  eifect,  and  yet  suppress 
the  fact  that  Capt.  Perry  found  the  Niagara  as  near  the 
enemy  as  he  had  then  been,  himself,  that  duy.  The  bold 
allegation  that  **  Perry  hort  down  in  the  Niagara,  and  why 
did  not  Elliott  do  the  same,"  is  often  made,  but  is  easily 
answered.  No  one  can  say  what  Capt.  Elliott  might  have 
done  had  there  been  time,  and    he   did,   allowing    for  the 

t- nf  --     : .-     A.'. :„    ^l^»:.>~         r>li    *Vir>*'      Vuvftr     Ko<l    ilonA       lilt 

UinerenCC  m   imiU  m  USwsj::^;,     an   mtx-.    i  '-"»/    '  1  ~V 

to  the  moment  when  he  left  his  brig— that  i^  to  say,  he  had 


BATTLE   or   LAKK    CRII. 


ion 


got  nil  nrar,  or  nlwut  ni  nanr  to  tlio  cnimiy,  nn  the  Lnw- 
r«!iicc  ever  g«»i.  1  huv  *Uihout  an  neiir" — tor  noiiie  NWtuir 
nearer^  and  utlier«  a^vtff  us  txnM ;  uiid  i  ciiooie  lii«  viiler 
oxpreNsioii. 

It  i«  by  confoiiiuiing  the  occuMiitioii«  iigaiiiiit,  and  the 
act!  of,  (?npt.  Fiiliott,  in  thin  manner,  that  I  conceive  to 
8tron<(and  widr-HprtMid  a  (irrjudicc  haH  heen  cnMitedagainiit 
him.  To  tell  alMuit  a  uuurH  lyin^^  UNtcrn,  with  hiti  top-Muil 
ahack,  in  an  engngfMnent,  while  other*  are  in  warm  eon- 
llict,  in  u  wry  ad  captandum  Moit  ol  argument;  hut,  it 
falls  to  the  gnmnd  if  it  he  explained  that  tlie  Hupp«>iied  de- 
linquent WMri  in  \v'<  iitatitm.  It  Hounds  ominouM  to  handy 
•♦  received  opinions*'  and  '*  reports"  in  an  army,  hut  what 
ore  they,  in  this  case,  in  tht  eyes  of  reason  and  justice  1^- 
l\\  H  word,  inMinuations  are  not  proof,  an.l,  though  Capt* 
Mackenzie  may  attach  importance  to  wise  Hphori»ni8  ah<»ut 
**  this  or  that  arm  chcHt,"  coming  frmn  the  mouth  of  a 
quarter-master,  or  quarter-gunner,  or  carpenter,  he  will  ex- 
cuse me,  if  I  hjok  tbr  the  best  evidence  of  which  the  case 
will  admit. 

The  charge  against  my  history  was,  that  it  was  written— 
meaning  the  part  connected  with  Lake  Eric — to  glorify 
Cnpt.  Elli(»tt  and  to  lessen  Capt.  Perry  in  the  public  esti- 
imitmn.  The  answer  was,  that  the  points  I  have  here 
discussed  were  controversial,  and  not  necessary  to,  or  fit 
for  history.  I  chose,  then,  to  follow  the  facts  which  be- 
longed properly  to  such  a  narrative,  and  which  I  conceived 
to  be  sufficiently  established.  Tht-  arbitrators  justified  this 
course  One  of  those  gentleman,  however,  dissented  on 
the  point  that,  liaving  mentioned  the  fact  that  Capt  Perry 
commended  Capt.  Elliott,  in  his  official  report,  I  ought  to 
have  mentioned  his  withdrawal  of  that  commendation,  in 
his  charges  of  1818.  This  dissent  strikes  me  as  unfortu- 
nate, in  more  than  one  sense.  In  the  first  place,  it  was  in 
/woo/ that  the  charges  of  1818  had  been  withdrawn,  and 
of  course  were  cancelled.  Then,  they  had  never  been 
acted  on,  and  charges  are  not  proof.  That  Capt.  Perry 
did  commend,  or  **  eulogize"  his  »»  second  in  command," 
is  out  of  all  question,  and  there  I  contend  the  historian  had 
a  rip-ht  and  it  w»s  a  dutv^  to  lo<»k  for  his  facts,  until  some 
public  act,  properly  consummated  and  adjudged,  authorized 


101 


UATTII",    (»K    I.AKK    IIUK. 


Iiini  III  loi)!<  tlHowlMTo.  Hut,  miioii«  tlio  (HIhm*  uliMintlilitM 
into  uliicli  llio  lUUMiMorH  »>r('ii|»t.  VMuiil  liavr  lallrn,  ih  oiio 
of  tlit'ir  oluirjy^rK  ii^iiiiiNt  tiii',  in  coniirrliim  Willi  tliih  cir- 
cuiiiNtiiiicr.  'Vhvy  Hi\y  llmt,  •'  IN'iry  iicciiHrd  KlliotI,  in 
1HI8,  1111(1  y«ni  wrrii  hound  \o  lot  tin'  world  know  it."  Now, 
lIu'NO  vrry  ^I'litiy  rxrum^  IN'iry'H  r«|MUt  of  IHIJI,  on  tlio. 
jfioiuul  timl  llir  trntli  would  hiivo  drHtroyrd  (-npt.  Klliotl, 
and  that  IhmhMiuI  from  a  *' hrnrvolrnl  ainhi^uity."  I  Its 
IVrry,  who  was  pn-Huathd  o\'  KIIioH'h  dtdiiniucncy,  iiii^ht 
do  tliirt,  nnd  nMiiniii  a  Hiiint ;  whilr  I,  who,  to  nay  //*«  »"/y 
/ai»r,  hcliovo  that  rillioU'H  didiiuiurnoy  adiuitttHi  of  many 
douhts,  iMiifht  m)l  do  tho  niium^  tiling,  without  Immii^  a  Hin- 
\wr  !  How  was  I  to  Hlalo  thiti  Himpic  fact,  ami  not  hwivo  a 
dotp  historical  taint  on  iIm^  iTjuitation  of  ('apt.  I'dliott  f — 
Did  ihoy  export  mr  to  ^o  into  thr  Huhjoct  at  Irn^tli  I  Woll, 
if  I  had,  it  woiihl  havr  hciMi  Homowlmt  in  thr  mode  it  hiiH 
iwvix  treatotl  \w\'v  ;  would  that  havo  natislifd  tluMu  I  'Vhvm 
moralists  maintain,  in  suhstaniM',  that  Capt.  IVrry,  with  all 
the  responsihility  of  a  judire,  ami  o(  hijfli  puhlir  duties, 
miji^ht  suppress  a  irrave  iart  for  the  purposes  of  a  '*  hem^vo- 
liHM  amhiifuity,"  Init  that  the  historian  was  hound  to  relate 
another  fact,  of  douiHfnl  truth,  which  existed  in  no  recog- 
nized or  auihentic  form,  and  which  even  if  it  liad,  waw 
nothing  hut  accusation,  ami  8tt»od  unproved,  merely  he- 
cftuse  the  influence  of  the  ♦Mieiievolent  amhij?uity"  had 
eeased  to  act  on  Oliver  IVrry's  henevolent  feeling's  !  They 
may  make  tht'.msvltyts  iUv  historical  cats  paws  of  ("oin. 
Terry,  if  they  please  ;  hut  they  must  excuse  me  fnun  imi- 
tatinii^  their  example. 

A«ain— tin  sc  persona  say  that  ("apt.  Perry  omitted  to 
mention  the  ft>ur  commaiulers  of  the  schooners  astern,  he- 
cause  Oapt.  Elliott  had  reported  ill  of  iliem.  Here,  then, 
they  bhndly  represent  (apt.  Perry  as  a  man  so  weak,  or  so 
wicked,  astirst  to  believe  (^apt.  Elliott  to  have  behaved  so 
ill  as  to  require  a  "benevolent  amhiiruity"  to  cover  his 
conduct,  ami,  yet,  to  condemn  others  on  his  testimony  ! 

It  is  time  t(»"clobe.  1  coulil  till  a  vohinie  more,  in  eirpo- 
sin^  the  fallacies,  contnufictions,  absurdities  and  falsehoods 
of  niy  opp»»neiit8,  but,  ifthe  public  mind  will  rect^ive  truth, 
fit  all,  on  this  subject,  cnouj^h  has  already  been  shown.  I 
have  had  uo  pleasure  in  exposing  the  parties  who  have 


IIATTI.R    or    I.AKF.    Kllll<:. 


105 


MNHIlilfMl    nW.        'VUlH  JM  N4M*M  III  tlir  (Irlliy    tllUt    llllH   llCCII    |M'I'' 

iriitttMl  to  occur.      IVIy  iVrlini^N,  no  fur  iin  I  IiimI  iiiiy,  wIm'II  1 
nn\  (!o\vii  to  write  \.\w  liJHtory  were  oti  the  Trrry  huUi  of  the 
4|ueNt.ion.      I'^xuiiiiiiulioii    Iiiih  c.Iiuii^imI  my  opinion,  iiinl  I 
Inipc  it  in   not  in   my  iiiitnr<^  to  lMM*.oine  the    iiiNlniment  of 
cireiihitin/if  error,  in  ih^ference  to    popiihir  ehimor  however 
huid.      (ireiit  aini  irrepariihh)  injiiHtiee    hiiH  heeii  done  me, 
in  coniMM'.tion   witli  thin  matter;    hut  infinitely  greater,    I 
tirnily  believe,  Iiiih  h(>en   done  to  Com.  I'illiott.      I  am    far 
tV<Mii  HiiltMcrihinu:  to  all  the    IrieiidH  and   advo(*Jit(;H   of  tluH 
gentleman,  even,  have  advance<]  in  liiw  helia!'*;  hut  I  think 
him  a  deeply  injured    man.      Th   t  ('apt.  I*erry  Hnh^tan- 
tially  used  the  lan<iriii(^r  imputed  to  him,  when  he  reaeJied 
the  Niairara,  1  entertain  no  doiiht,  for  it  \h  provtid  hy  Mufl^- 
eieiit  eiimiilative  evidimee;  hut  I  do  not  attach  tfie  meaninuf 
to  it,  that  hiiM  been  dtme  hy  Hiuiie.     In  my  ((HiimunicationH 
with  (^nu.  Klliotl,  the  iitmoMt  iVankneMrt  Ihih  Imjcu  iiHcd.     I 
liav<;  t(dd  him  that  I  do  not  ap|»(Mtr  aH  liis  didetidtT,  hut  aH 
my    own;    and    it   is  owini^  to  tin!  circnniHlaiice  lliat.  hiH 
cjinse  riiiiH  ho   mindi    and  no  closely   paralell  to  the  truth, 
that  he  may  derive  Homi5  henefit   from    my  courHc.     The 
^rcatmiHtak(5  of  the  other  side,  Iiiih  been  a  falHc  appreciation 
of  the   power  of  truth,   and  an  cxa|r{r(j|iited  notion  of  the 
deferi'iico  of  the  common  mind   to   perHoiiH  and  nameH. — 
The  laat  in  jrreat,  I  will  allow  ;  but  it  in  not  ho  Htronjif  an  to 
veil  the  lij^ht  from  tin;  even  of  the  di«ccrninfr  and  uprij[rbt. 
The  principles  whioh  tin;  (ireat  Power  of  tin;  univerHC  has 
establiahcd  an   from  hiniHelf  ami   of  hiniMelf,  will  exiHt  aJ- 
tlioiijrh  !Mr.    Trislam    Ilur^(;H  b(!liev(^s  the  Hattle  of  LtxUc- 
Krie  to  be  a  "part  of  the  maritime  afl'airH  of  Khode  iHland  ;" 
Dr.  Duer    fancies   a  little    school   boy  latin  will  wrap   up 
fallacies,   niis(|uotatioiis  and    prof(;ssional  i«rnorance   from 
the  vuljrar  ken  ;    or  Oapl.    IMacken/i<!  is  led  away  by  the 
notion  that  all  mankind  are  to  view  his  hero,  and  his  nets, 
with  the  same  subservient  senses  and  judgment  as  lie  sub- 
mits to  liiinseir. 

.r.  FENIMORE  COOPER. 


APPENDIX. 


Crrtain  of  our  rcatlcrs  may  wish  to  possess  cloiiror 
iiotiotia  of  the  lending  incitlentHof  the  Hattle  of  Lake  Erie, 
as  well  as  of  the  testimony  given  on  the  opposing  sides  of 
the  controversy  that  has  grown  out  of  it,  tlian  ean  he  oh- 
tained  from  the  answers  given  in  the  h«»dy  of  this  puhlica- 
tion.  To  aid  them  in  their  incpiiries,  the  writer  adtis  a  few 
pages  in  the  way  of  postscript. 

All  the  testimony  that  has  heen  publislied,  will  be  found, 
either  in  the  body  of  the  Life  of  Klliott,  or  in  its  appendix. 
If  any  other  evidence  has  been  given  to  the  world,  the 
writer  cannot,  at  this  moment,  recall  it.  As,  however,  he 
lias  alluded  to  the  evidence  of  a  lit.  Packett,  which  does 
not  appear  in  this  ap})endix,  it  may  be  well  to  mention 
that  it  exists  in  manuscrijit,  of  which  he  possesses  a  copy, 
made  by  another  person,  for  the  sake  of  certifying  to  it,  if 
necessary.  Those  who  wi.-«h  to  get  the  testimony,  will  find 
that  the  following  persons  appear  as  witnesses,  in  one  shape 
or  another :  vi/. — 


For  Com.  Elliott. 

Lieutenants  Smith, 

Edwards, 
Conklin, 
Purser  Magrath, 
Sail.  Master  Webster, 
Capt.  Urevoort, 
Midshipmen  Nichols, 
Page, 
Adams, 
Cummings, 
Montgomery, 
Surgeon  Barton, 
Master's-Matc  Tatem, 
Boatswain     Berry. 

To  these  lists  must  be  added  the  name  of  Lt.  Packett, 
whose  testimony  fully  corroborates  the  account  of  the  battle 
as  given  by  the  writer.     From  the  list  of  witnesses  against 


Against  Com.  Elliott. 

Commodore   Perry, 

Lieutenants   Yarnall, 

Forrest, 

Stevens, 

Turner, 

Sailing  Masters  Taylor, 

Champlin, 
Master's  Mate  Brownell, 
Surgeon's  Mate  Parsons, 
Capt's.  Clerk  Breese. 


IIATTLE    OF    LAKE    ERIE. 


107 


• 

Cnpt  FJIiott  must  be  struck  llie  nninea  of  Com.  Perry  unci 
Lt.  Forrest;  the  first,  because  he  titlinits  himself,  that  an 
issue  had  Inien  made  up  uO'ectinii^  //iv  own  character,  and 
because  he  also  admits  that  ho  lontr  as  this  issue  was  not 
male  up,  he  had  been  content  to  i^ire  a  diff'trcnt  account 
of  the  matter ;  the  last  because  he  Hatiy  contradicts  his 
adverse  testimony,  under  oath.  The  testimony  of  Com. 
Turner,  too,  will  be  found  to  sustain  the  writer,  and  to  con- 
tradict Capt.  Mackenzie,  as  he  substantially  avers  that 
Com.  Elliott,  came  into  close  action,  though  in  his  judg- 
ment, too  late.  The  first  is  a  fact  ;  the  last,  an  opinion, 
OC  the  opinion,  the  reader  may  judge  by  reading  Perry's 
own  account  of  his  order  of  battle,  and  his  injunction  on 
his  commanders  to  keep  the  line,  as  well  as  the  tenor  of  the 
only  signal  he  made  from  the  Lawrence,  during  the  en- 
gagement, as  QUOTED  from  the  signal  book,  6^  his  own 
witnesses. 

The  reader  will  discover  o  great  deal  of  contradiction  in 
the  testimony.  Some  of  it  cannot  be  accounted  for  unless 
it  be  by  mistaken  opinion.  A  good  deal  of  it,  however, 
may  be  explained.  Thus  Mr.  Brownell  says: — "The 
Lawrence  went  gallantly  into  close  action,  but  the  Niagara 
continued  to  keep  at  a  much  frreater  distance  astern  than 
when  the  action  commenced,''*  At  the  first  blush,  this  is 
contradictory,  per  se,  and  it  leaves  the  clear  inference  that 
the  Niagara  must  have  turned  round,  and  receded  from  the 
enemy.  It  is,  liovt  ever,  fair  to  presume  that  Mr.  Brownell 
meant  neither  the  contradiction  nor  the  charge  that  the  Ni- 
agara ran  away.  '■'' Continuing  to  keep  at  a  much  greater 
distance**  is  so  palpable  a  contradictien,  as  to  render  it 
probable  that  someiJiing  was  meant,  that  was  not  express- 
ed. The  writer  supposes  Mr.  Brownell  meant  to  say  that 
the  Niagara  continued,  for  some  period  in  his  own  mind,  at 
a  greater  distance  from  the  Lawrence,  than  ahe  was  when 
the  firing  commenced.  This  fact  is  true ;  and  it  is  ac- 
counted for  by  the  circumstance  that  the  Lawrence  left  the 
Caledonia,  and  tliat  the  Niagara  was  ordered  to  remain 
astern  of  the  Caledonia. 

Again  : — Mr.  Champlin  hris  a  seeming  contradiction, 
also.  It  has  been  seen  that  this  witness,  while  he  says 
Capt.  Elliott  went  to  windward  of  the  Lawrence,  leaving 


ll 


lOS 


n.VTTLE    OP    LAKE    ERIE. 


the  latter  expostMl  to  llu;  enemy  *a  fire,  ilocs  not  say  he  wait 
to  windward  of  his  own  schooner,  leaving  tlie  just  inference 
that  lie  went  to  leeward  of  the  Scorpion,  and  was,  of  coarse, 
nearer  to  the  enemy  than  hid  own  schooner,  which  all  ad- 
mit was  in  close  action.     In  another  part  of  his  affidavit, 

he  says  : "  It  was  the  opinion  of  the  officers  and  men  of 

the    s<iuadron,    (clearly   a  mistake,   hy  the  way,  as  more 
testify  in  Capt.  Elliott's  favor,  than  testify  against  Inm  !)— 
ihat  Capt.  Elliott  did  not  do  his  duty  in  the  action  on  that 
day,  and  that  had   his  conduct  heen   that  of  a  hrave  man, 
there  is  no  possihie  reason  can  be  given   why  his  vessel 
should  not  have  been  brought  into  close  action   with  the 
British  squadron,  heforr.  Com.  Pury  went  on  board  her.'' 
Th     words  italicised   would  give  reason  to  suppose  that 
Mr.  Champlin  means  that  the  Niagara  was  not  in  close 
action  when  Perry  reached  her;  or  as  near  to  the  enemy ias 
he  was  himself;  which  woidd  be  substantially  contradicting 
Perry  himself,   contradicting   Mr.   Turner  unequivocally, 
directly  contradicting  nearly  every  witness  belonging  to  the 
Niagara,  and  contradicting  the  just  inferences  that  are  to  be 
drawn  from  the  other  part  of  his  own  testimony  mentioned. 
It  is  probable  that  by  the  close  action  alluded  to,  in  this 
sentence,  the   witness   meant  the  close  action  into  which 
Peny  carried  the  Niagara,  after  Capt.  Elliott  left  her,  which 
was   certainly      Mich   nearer  to  the  enemy  than  she  was 
when  he  got  on  board   her  ;    but  which   was    also  much 
nearer,  than  he  got,  himself,  in  the  Lawrence. 

The  testimony  may  be  fairly  explained,  in  this  way,  in 
a  great  many  places.  Thus  Mr.  Montgomery,  one  of  Capt. 
ElliottV  witnesses,  and  a  man  of  character,  says,  in  answer 
to  a  question  before  the  Court  of  Inquiry  : — "Yes  ;  before 
the  Lawre!ice  was  disabled,  she  (the  Charlotte  is  meant) 
bore  up  and  ran  foul  of  the  Detroit,  on  that  ship's  lee 
quarter."  As  the  Charlotte  did  run  foul  of  the  Detroit  at 
a  later  period  of  the  action,  and  did  not  before  the  Law- 
rence was  disabled,  this  answer  has  been  cited  as  a  proof 
of  defecti^'c  memory,  and  consequently  of  defective  testi- 
mony on  the  part  of  this  witness.  But  the  matter  is  easily 
explained.  When  the  Charlotte  left  her  station  in  the  line 
and  closed  with  the  Detroit,  she  fell  to  leeward  of  her  con- 
sorts, and  being  quite  close  to  the  Detroit,  she  appeared  to 


UATTI.E    OP    LAKE     BRIE. 


109 


Mit 


many  in  the   Americnn  vessels  t<»  be  foul  of  the  latter  «hip. 

These  iuHtanceH  are  nain(;d,  to  put  the  reader  on  his 
guard,  as  much  that  appears  contrathctory,  or  untrue,  in 
the  testimony,  may  he  very  fairly  cleartMt  up,  on  an  intel- 
ligent and  impartial  investiiration.  Still  there  are  direct 
contradictions  that  will  admit  of  explanation  on  no  other 
ground  than  errors  of  jutlgmcnt,  opinions  warj^ed  hy  much 
discussion  and  prejudice,  or  positive  perjury.  Of  the  first, 
there  is  a  great  d»'al  counected  with  the  nninner  in  which 
l*erry*s  order  of  haitle  should  he  construed  ;  of  the  second, 
there  is  even  more,  as  is  evident  from  the  tenor  of  many  of 
the  alHilavits  of  those  who  testify  against  Capi.  Elliott,  the 
witnesses  going  out  of  their  way  to  relate  rumors,  and  im- 
material facts  that  they  think  will  tell,  thus  lessenmg  their 
own  credibility  rather  than  injuring  the  |)arty  they  assail  ; 
of  the  last,  the  writer  sees  no  reason  for  suspecting  any. 

An  attempt  was  made  before  the  arbitrators,  in  184'^,  to 
elevate  the  personal  characters  of  the  Perry  witnesses,  at 
the  expense  of  the  Elliott  witnes««es.     Nothing  is  more  cer- 
tain than  the  fact  that  the  testimony  of  one  honest  and  in- 
telligent man,  is  worth  more  than  the  testimony  of  a  dozen 
fools  or  knaves,  but  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  there  was 
any  superiority  of  character  or  intelligence,  in  favor  ol  the 
witnesses  who  testify  against  Com.  Elliott.     Judging  from 
the   tcsf.imoni/j   on   its   facv,^   most   clear    headed    persons 
would  think,  the  writer  is  persuaded,  that  the  Elliott  testi- 
mony, as  a  whole,  comes  from  the  clearest  minds  and  the 
least  prejudiced  intentions.     As  for  professional  character, 
a  point  that  was  mucli  insisted  on,  the  writer  is  not  aware 
of  any  particular  advantage  enjoyed  by  the  side  of  Com. 
Perry.      It   is  true,    that  three   of  his  witnesses,  Messrs. 
Turner,  Stevens,  and  Taylor  have  risen  to  be  post  captains, 
and  the  first  now  wears  a  broad  pennant ;  but  this  is  entirely 
owing  to  accident,  their  eqi  jJs  in  ranU,  on  the  other  side 
of  the  question,  having  died,  wuh  good  characters,  as  lieu- 
tenants.    Had  Messrs.  Smith,  Edwards,  Webster,  &«.  lived 
a   few  years  longer,  they  would  have  been  capt!i^n8  too=— • 
The  late  Capt,  Stevens  was  a  gnr>d  officer,  beyond  a  doubt, 
and  he  proved   himself  a  brave  man  on  other  occasions ; 
but  so  did  several  of  the  Elliott  witnesses.     Com.  Turner 
is  a  good  officer,  and  a  respectable  and  highly  honorable 
10 


no 


BATTLE    OF    LAKE    ERIE. 


and  honest  man  ;  but  he  contradicts,  in  effect,  Cnpt.  Mack- 
enzie and  all  that  clique.  His  condemnation  of  Com.  El- 
liott, as  connected  with  the  battle,  is  purely  a  matter  of 
opinion.  He  evidently  thinks  Elliott  ought  to  have  put  a 
different  ccmstruction  on  the  order  of  battle,  wherein  the 
writer  thinks  he  is  manifestly  wrong. 

It  18  a  failing  of  the  other  side  to  extol  all  their  »  geese  a» 
swans  '  While  the  history  was  in  progress,  various  at- 
tempts were  made  to  convince  the  writer  of  the  superiority 
of  the  Perry  witnesses,  and  of  their  greater  claims  to  credi- 
bility. One  «.f  them,  in  particular,  was  paraded  before  him^ 
as  a  man  of  singular  claims  to  respect.  The  testimony  ot 
this  witness  was  far  from  telling  in  his  favor,  and  the  writer 
took  the  trouble  to  enquire  into  his  character,  of  different 
impartial  persons— of  officers,  indeed,  who  are  unfriendly 
to  Com  Elliott— and  the  answer  was  uniform— the  witness 
was  believed  to  be  one  of  the  weakest  men  in  the  navy  ! 

As  respects  the  witnesses,  the  writer  has  treated  them 
all  as  entitled  to  credit,  except  when  they  are  incapacitated 
by  their  own  showing.  He  knows  that  Com.  Elliotts 
witnesses  are  the  best,'^on  legal  principles  ;  and  he  believes 
they  are  much  the  best  as  a  whole,  on  the  score  ot  intelli- 
gence and  impartiality.  To  analyze  all  the  testimony,  how- 
ever, and  to  prove   this,   would  require  a  book  of  several 

hundred  pages.  rwn     . 

The  entire  theory  of  the  battle,  is  as  follows:— The  two 
squadrons  were  formed,  as  is  exhibited  in  the  diagram  on 
the  opposite  page.  This  diagram  shows  the  Lawrence, 
No.  3,  leaving  the  Caledonia,  No.  4,  and  the  Niagara,  No. 
5,  in  her  station  astern  of  the  latter.  The  writer  conceives 
that  the  ivitnesses  against  Capt.  Elliott  think  that  officer 
ought  to  have  passed  the  Caledonia,  immediately,  without 
regard  to  the  injunction  to  keep  the  line,  inasmuch  as  the 
Lawrence  was  leading  ahead,  and  was  likely  to  be  exposed 
to  a  combined  fire,  only  partially  assisted.  The  answer  to 
this   opinion  is  this  :     The  order  to  preserve  the  line  was 

.    ^1--    :„:.._: —  ..»^n;«rorl  Kw    tl>p  T,nwr*»np.«   were 

peremprory  ;  mu  iujuucb  ict-».itv^.  --j    • --- 

received  gradually,  and  were  better  known  to  her  own 
commander,  than  to  the  commander  of  the  Niagara,  while 
the  former  had  the  authority  to  call  the  latter  to  his  relief, 
a  course    the    latter  could  not    take  without  disobeying 


BATTLE    OF    LAKE    ERIE. 


Ill 


£.2   . 


4> 

.fl 


>•»      -  u -O   *   4-   3    I'   5* 

^  <sl  H  ^  irf  '.^  t-  <i« 


L 


0* 
3Q 


o 
m 

n 

< 


i-J  (jl «  'T  iri  <^ 


It' 


y 


"l^f 


■t 


S  S'Si 

S  (d  ed  o 

.   IVJ3 

O  "   *( 

ee  c  ^.d 
a  «e  J  >« 
*^  5  *  a 

*-  S  b3 
3  4)5  . 

•f    rj  **  «- 

-I  ^"2  = 

g   4>  Oj  V  V 

bo  q  ^  -,  „ 

B  «  K'3 
w  S .-  fl  ^ 
rt  n  a  O  a 

*  S  o  «, 
•■^       •-•9) 

£r  S  S  ^  « 

».p*   ^    00    2J 

.2  &  >  •-  3 


112 


BATTLE   OP    LAKE    ERIC. 


orders;  it  was  as  much  the  duty  of  Perry  to  cliange  hi» 
own  order  of  battle,  if  circuniHtanceM  rccjuirt'd,  as  it  wa«  of 
Elliott  to  reHpect  it,  until  eircunistaiiceH  imperiously  de- 
manded an  exercise  of  his  own  judgment.  When  this  con- 
tin/^ency  occurred  Capt.  Elliott  did  assume  the  responsi- 
biliiy  of  disobeying  the  order  of  battle,  an<l  passed  his 
second  ahead,  as  is  seen  in  diagram  No.  2. 

In  this  diagram,  the  Niagara  has  passed  the  Ctdedonia, 
without  orders,  and  is  closing  in  the  wake  of  the  Lawrence. 
The  reader  will  find  this  fact  authenticated  by  the  Joint 
letter  of  the  ward-room  officers  of  the  Niagara,  page  124, 
Life  of  Elliott ;  by  Mr.  Magrath  in  a  letter  written  by  him- 
self, shortly  after  the  battle,  page  128;  by  Messrs.  Webster, 
Montgomery,  Adams,  Tatem,  Cummings,  Nichols,  Bre- 
voort  and  Berry  ;  and,  it  agrees  with  the  facts  given  by 
Messrs.  Packett,  and  Turner,  while  it  is  directly  contra- 
dicted, the  writer  believes,  by  no  body. 

It  is  true  that  a  few  of  Capt.  Perry's  witnesses  speak  of 
the  Caledonia's  going  down  with  the  Lawrence,  while  they 
8.«y  that  the  Niagara  was  a  long  distance  astern,  which 
would  seem  to  contredict  the  circumstance  that  the  Niagara 
was  close  to  the  Caledonia,  until  she  passed  her.  This, 
then,  is  a  question  of  fact,  to  be  settled  by  the  weight  cf 
testimony. 

Of  the  Perry  witnesses,  Messrs.  Stevens,  Champlin^ 
Breese,  and  7'nylor  say,  in  one  form  or  another,  that  the 
Caledonia  went  down  with  the  Lawrence,  leaving  the  Ni- 
agara astern  and  to  windward  ;  while  Messrs.  Turner,  Yar- 
nall,  Forrest  and  Brownell  say  nothing  on  the  point,  at 
all.  On  the  other  hand,  Messrs.  Smith,  Edwards,  Web- 
ster, iVlagrath,  Brevooit,  Adams,  Cummings,  Tatem,  Mont- 
gomery, and  Nichols,  in  some  form  or  other,  contradict 
them  altogether.  Now,  the  officers  of  the  Niagara  and  the 
Caledonia  were  the  best  witnesses  as  to  the  relative  posi- 
tions of  their  two  brigs — they  certainly  knew  best,  whether 
they  were,  or  were  not,  near  each  other,  and  while  all  the 

OTfi/»<»ro   t-iT   t-lx^i    frwr-mor      M/nr\    m/oro     t\n    Aot^lr      orrfoo    in    c;  o  •»>  i »-« #» 

-.---««_»»^a"      ^"«       **»•-'       ^--s    •*«-'.,        -T-e--        Ty-^-IV        VrtT       ^T"^—  -1\,       T»£^f^V      JII       CtX  X  m  iL 

they  werSf  until  the  Niagara  passed,  none  of  the  officers  of 
the  Caledonia  deny  it !  But  we  have  conclusive  proof 
that  the  Niagara  must  have  been  near  the  Caledonia,  and, 
were  the  latter  near  the  Lawrence,  the  former  must  have 


DATTLE    or    LAKE    ERIE. 


113 


O 

m 

m 

< 


7 


.  •♦     •* 


f 


■t 


t 


Q,i__'  U  Ta   f    4)    3    V 
%al  ;*    1;  w  g   V  u 


I 


J8  a  ij  (x-r 


.2j  *^3  a  ;"  -°- 


3     o  , 


Co.' 


•  2  *  3  - 


«   ?   **   .      (U 
J3  *  3.  S  5  .IS 


e  £  L's  E  S  8 

•  2.5  J.2ao 

.•■an  0^  V 

«=  js  5  _  a 

■■lEjl 


sS^ 


■-■5  ctf«f 

« 5-3  3  a 


*  c8  a  ^ 

«  «  *  X  a^ 


.0   ^ 

'2'c 


So.®    .■ 


5-5-5- ?i° 


a 


^1 

*~~    *    0;    -    g 

s  «  «  i  3 

•J  o*^  w.5.2  5 
»  «  o  o  ^  —  Tl 
*:u  n  «  «  OS  g 

IB  .J-  "  u  ^o  *• 
s  a 


-«s.r' 


^-  »-  —  O  » 

.-      4)  S;  .2  «  w 

e  »  3         4J  4-  * 

•S  °g  u  oi  j=  g  « 


10* 


114 


HATTLB   or    LAKK    KBIB. 


been  near  her  too.     It  is  iidmitted  nil   rouiul  tluit    Ca|>t. 
Elliott  liiiilett  the  CHletJoiiiu,  ordering  Mr.  Turner  to  l>ear 
up,  and  let  the  Niagara  [man.     TliiM  wan  prohahly  an  hour, 
or  more,  ader  the   tirinji^  commenced.      No  one  denicH  the 
fact,  it  hein^  actually  one  of  the  out-door  chargen  against 
Capt.  PJIiott  that  he  pasMed  to  windward  of  the  (Jaiedonia, 
instead  ol  hearing  up  himself,  and  going  to  leeward.     Wit- 
nesses to  this  fact  were  actually  examined  before  the  arbi- 
trators,  in   1842  !     In  this  manner  does  truth  leak    out 
through  misrepresentation  and  |)rejudi<;e.     If  Capt.  Elliott 
were  so  near  the  Caledonia^  and  yet  so  far  astern^  it  follows 
that  the    Caledonia  did  not  ffo  down  with  the  iMwrencc^ 
and  the  Perry  witnesses  in  all  that  relates  to  this  fact,  are 
in  a  palpable  error.     That  the   Caledonia  early  engaged^ 
is  true,  for  she  had  two  long  twenty  fours,  and  could  tight 
them  at  n  distance  even  greater  than  that  at  which   the 
Niagara  was  represented  by  Perry,  himself,  in  his  charges 
to  be,  although   that  disiance  exceeds  the  distance  of  his 
own  witnesses  by  nearly  one  half.     The  truth  is,  beyond 
a  doubt,that  the  Lawrence  reached  ahead  of  the  Caledonia, 
the    latter  trying   all   she   could    to  close,  but  was   l<ept 
astern  by  her  dull  saiUng  and  the  lightness  of  the  wind,  it 
falling  nearly  calm  as  soon  as  the  firing  became  heavy. 

Diagram  No  3  represents  the  movement  which  occurred 
at  the  close  of  the  action      Here  the  wind  has  freshened, 
the  Niagara  has  passed  the  Lawrence,  (then  setting  astern 
and  to  leeward)  to  windward  of  her,  while  the  Caledonia 
follows  to  leeward.     When  Mr.  Turner  bore  up  to  let  the 
Niagara  pass  ahead,  he  contirmed  fanning  down  upon  the 
enemy,  using  \n» pivot  guns,  until  he  got  nearer  to  the  rear 
of  the  British  line  than  the  Lawrence  had  ever  been,  and 
ia  following  to  the  southward  and  westward  l>e  went  inside 
of  that  brig.     This  circumstance  may   also  explain  much 
of  the  testimony,  some  of  the  witnesses  making  it  a  grave 
charge  that  the  Niagara  passed  the  Lawrence  to  windward. 
The  fact  is  of  no  moment,  as  the  act  of  passing  could  oc- 
cupy hul,  an  instant  of  lime,  vvhiicit  was  important  to  Capt. 
Elliott  to  keep  to  windward  of  the  enemy's  heaviest  vessels, 
and  the  Lawrence  having  a  stern  and    leeward  set   might 
have  embarrassed  him       It  is  true  Capt.  Perry  subsequently 
cut  the  British  line,   and   passed   to    leeward  ;  but  it  was 


BATTLi;    Uk'    LAKU    h;Uli;. 


11a 


< 


^•iWWw<<(» 


i^ 


II 


K 


jt  s  s  a  •  r  s-p  J!^ 


■2s5 


t"S~"H 


^si-s 


al<2^ 


i-sss 


'■firS 


nil.- 


^o|5 


S.f-SS'-S 


=ca-3-='3 


••3'' 


!i-s:=,;£&*«2  ?'-~lt■qf■- 


I  si 


1"-;? 

^3?^ 


•So 


fi   as   S  .^ 


■  5  =  zii  a 

5^ S  c  „  «  2 


s  E  c  c 

o  g  3  o 
_  _  ^•'  *  "3  * 


W-   W    O    2    «J 

•9  1 1  J-  * 


,  s.  =  -a 


JO  o.=  * 


25  g 

41 


Mi-6t» 


t,  «  SH3  ••  ?  ►  2  p  ttf 


116 


IIATTLR    or    LAKE    ERIE. 


aAcr  the  two  En^titli  iliipd  lincl  ^ot  foul  of  rnch  other,  and 
thiiN  prrinittt'ii  him  to  rnkv  thcitii  Inuh,  at  the  •ntiit!  time.— 
There  IM  no  queMtioii  that  l'erry*fi  moveiiioiit,  at  thin  |M!riod 
of  the  action,  was  prompt,  ^alhint,  and  oHicer-hke;  hut  it  is 
flinKuhirily  unfair  to  charge  another  with  not  having  done 
the  name  tiling,  wlien  the  contingency  which  produced  it, 
had  not  occurred,  while  it  wuh  in  hiu  power  to  execute  the 
fame  muncouvre. 

All  the  niiMConception  of  the  puhlic  in  this  matter,  has 
procieeded  from  myMtificationn,  which,  in  their  turn,  have 
nriiien  from  miHta*<'en  viewn,  (in  the  part  of  the  witnenHCfl, 
and  narrow  prejudicen.  The  factj*  that  the  Niagara  was 
astern,  while  the  Lawrence  wuh  Hutfering,  and  that  Capt. 
Perry  went  closer  with  that  hrig,  when  he  got  on  hoard  of 
her,  than  Hhe  had  heen  taken  hy  (Japt.  F.lliott,  were  very 
liable  to  misconception.  They  are  explained,  however, 
when  it  is  known  tluit  Elliott  was  in  a  station  he  was  en- 
joined to  keep,  while  astern,  and  that  he  went  as  near,  after 
pasiiing  the  Lawrence,  as  Perry,  himself,  had  gone  in  his 
own  brig.  New  circumstences  occurred  in  the  close  of  the 
affair,  that  culled  for  new  mana^uvres.  These  circum- 
stances Perry  nobly  improved  ;  hut  Capt.  IHIiott  was  not 
idle  at  the  same  time,  coming  much  nearer  in  the  Homers, 
than  Perry  had  come  in  the  Lawrence. 

The  reader  who  will  examine  the  evidence,  will  find 
that  these  views  are  accurate.  lie  must,  however,  reject 
**  reports,"  *•  received  opinions  of  the  fleet'*  that  are  con- 
tradicted by  the  weiifht  of  testimony,  and  '*  rumors"  ,ibojt 
two  men  wounded.  When  u  witness,  of  character,  Ji^ie  ^it. 
Webster,  swears  that  two  men  were  killed  in  his  (jivi«4iuni 
he  must  not  discredit  him,  on  the  ground  that  ('apt.  Mack- 
enzie has  one  of  his  extraordinary  theories,  which  shows 
that  the  witness  must  be  mistaken  ;  or  on  '*  rumor^*  arising 
not  from  any  c«  i  r,  dictions  of  a  natural  law,  or  unavoid- 
able inferenc*'  '.  -  a  '^^emiges  fairly  stated,  but  because 
"rumor"  its*;ir  rAit^  a  different  story  ! 

It  is  (iften  urtfed  to  the  writer  that  most  of  the  officers 
of  the  navy  are  of  opinions  against  Com.  Elliott's  conduct 
in  the  Battle  <)f  Lake  Erie.  'I'his  is  probubly  true ;  it 
certainly  is  amonir  tin*  writer's  acquaintances  But  what 
is  an  opinion  worth,  when  the  party  is  ignorant  of  facts  1 — 


in  th 
cers  I 
who 
have 
sides, 
own  ( 
and  I 
uiista 
bin  vi 
donc( 
facts, 
than  i 


BATTLB   or    LAKB    RRIB. 


117 


Ckmor  ami  HHHcrti«m  have  bet>ii  the  iiubitittitea  of  tvidence 
III  thm  ca«s  and  the  writer  »m»  never  yet  met  with  five  otH- 
cem  III  the  navy,  let  them  h««  of  what  rank  they  might-thope 
who  were  in  tlie  hatlh-  excepted— who  appeared  to  him  to 
liave  ever  read  more  than  the  evidence  on  one  side.  Be- 
Biden,  the  writer,  an  a  hiHtoiiun,  in  respoimihU)  only  for  U\» 
own  opinionH.  Hv  knows  how  ditlicull  it  i^  to  obtain  trntli, 
and  never  has  pretended  that  hin  work  does  not  contain 
mifltake«^— all  iuHtorieM  do— hut  he  feeU  confuleiit  that,  in 
hiu  viewM  oC  the  Battle  of  Lake  Krie,  the  weight  of  evi- 
donee,  the  true  nautical  view  of  the  <|ne«tion,  and  the 
tiictM.mako  out  a  case  far  more  in  favor  of  Com  KllioU, 
than  in  favor  of  his  assailantM. 


i 


TH£    £N1>. 


i  \ 

r 


t« 


ti 


ERRATA. 

This  pamphlet  having  been  printed  under  somewhat  unfavorable 
circumstances,  more  errors  of  the  press  are  to  he  found  in  it,  than  is 
usual.  The  typographical  errors  will  be  left  to  the  intejligence  of  th« 
reader,  except  in  cases  where  they  affect  the  sense,  but  it  is  necessary 
to  note  most  of  the  mistakes  in  words. 

Page  7,  5th  line  from  bottom,  "appears"  should  read  "  appear." 

12,  10th  line  from  top,  for  "circumstance"  read  "circum- 
stances" .      o,         •        1     , 

14.  It  was  intended,  by  saying  that  "the  Scorpion  had  one 
twenty-four,"  merely  to  point  out  the  error  of  Mr.  Burgea, 
who  says  she  had  tuoo  thirty-twos.  She  had  one  twenty- 
four,  and  a  thirty-two  pound  carronade,  a%;ording  to  th« 
writer's  information. 

15.  6th  line,  for  "  commanders,"  read  "  commodore." 
18,  25th  line,  for  the  "a"  read  "d." 
21,  19th  line,  for  "Lawrence,"  read  "  Niagara." 
29,   18th  line,  for  "calibres  of  the  guns  ts,"^read  "are." 
32,  25th  line,  for  "  have,"  read  "has." 
42,  6th  line,  for  "second,"  read  "third." 

55,  2d  line  from  bottom,  for  "positions,"  read  "position." 

56,  13th  line,  for  "was,"  read  "were." 

57,  18th  line,  for  "when,"  read  "in." 
67,  6th  line,  in  part  of  the  edition,  "Barton's"  is  printed  for 

"Parsons." 

16.  8th  line  from  bottom,  for  "Porcupine,"  read  "Scorpion." 

In  saying  that  his  History  has  been  excluded  from  the  i)ublic  school 
libraries,  so  far  as  rested  with  those  who  possessed  the  power  of 
recommendation,  while  Capt.  Mackenzie's  Biography  of  Perry  has 
been  admitted,  the  writer  had  no  intention  to  refer  to  any  now  m  au- 
thority, in  the  State  Government,  or  to  any  acts  since  the  decision  of 
the  arbitration  in  his  favor,  in  the  spring  of  1842. 

In  speaking  of  the  loss  of  the  Niagara,  it  is  said  it  was  comparatively 
greater  than  that  of  any  other  vessef  in  the  war  of  1812,  the  Lawrence 
and  Essex  excepted.  Perhaps  to  these  two  last  ships,  the  Saratoga 
ought  to  be  added.  Two  accounts  of  the  loss  of  the  Niagara  have 
been  given;  that  of  the  official  report,  and  that  of  her  own  surgeon. 
On  the  part  of  Com.  Elliott,  it  is  affirmed  that  the  returns  on  which 
Perry  reported  were  given  in  by  Dr.  Parsons,  and  that  he  endeavored 
to  lessen  the  loss  of  tliisbrig,  under  the  influence  of  the  feeling  he  so 
early  manifested.  Dr.  Barton  affirms  that  Jive  men  were  killed, 
whereas  the  official  report  puts  this  number  at  two.  The  following 
circumstances  render  it  probable  that  Dr.  Barton  was  right.  This 
gentleman  speaks  of  a  man  who  was  mortally  wounded  in  a  ham- 
mock before  his  owA  eyes.  Add  this  man  to  the  two,  sworn  to  by  Mr. 
Webster,  as  killed  in  his  division  before  Capt.  Perry  reached  the  Ni- 
a"ara,  and  we  get  more  than  are  contained  in  the  official  report.     Dr. 

Darton,  moruovci, iiic pt;iiija.iia.tii  iis'-vit'./".  1— •• — g ?•• 

be  more  apt  to  get  the  facts,  from  a  scattered  crew,  in  the  long  run,  than 
Dr.  Parsons,  whose  account,  even  supposing  him  uninfluenced  by 
feelin«',  as  he  clearly  was  not  by  his  own  showing,  was  made  out  in 
time  for  a  report  written  three  days  after  the  action. 


«( 


<< 
It 


41 


tl 


<l 


forable 

than  is 

i  of  th« 

sessary 

ar." 

;ircuin- 

Hid  one 

3urges, 

wenty- 

;  to  the 

)> 

m  " 

till 

ited  for 

rpion." 

J  school 

[)wer  of 

rry  has 

V  in  au- 

ision  of 

ratively 

• 

wrence 

aratoga 

ra  have 

urgeon. 

1  which 

savored 

g  lie  so 

killed, 

llowing 

.     This 

a  ham- 

by  Mr. 

the  Ni- 

rt.     Dr. 

a  wculd 

un,than 

iced  by 

^ 

e  out  in 

